Wikia

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History C

Talk0
679pages on
this wiki

The Ancient World Edit

Caesar, AugustusEdit

(63 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) Roman emperor Augustus was a title given to Octavian when he became the first emperor of the Roman Empire and established the institutional framework that would serve Romans for 300 years. Octavian was the adopted son and heir of Julius Caesar. His rule initiated the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of peace, which ended a century of Roman civil wars. His reign as emperor brought forth a new cultural period, which became known as the golden age of Latin literature and saw many new buildings erected in Rome. This period marked the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of imperial Rome. Octavian was born Gaius Octavius on September 23, 63 b.c.e., in Rome. His father was Gaius Octavius, and his mother, Atia, was the niece of Julius Caesar. His grandmother Julia was Caesar’s elder sister. THE SECOND TRIUMVIRATE The First Triumvirate was initially a secret, unofficial political alliance to rule Rome. It consisted of Gaius Julius Caesar (Julius Caesar); Marcus Licinius Crassus, who had suppressed the slave revolt led by Spartacus; and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey). Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 b.c.e., the Ides of March. Julius Caesar’s will revealed that Octavian was his adopted son, the heir of his name, and heir of his considerable estate. Octavian became known as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Upon his return to Rome Octavian discovered that Mark Antony had taken charge. They formed an alliance of three along with Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, one of Caesar’s most trusted allies. This Second Triumvirate was officially supported by the Roman government and was given special powers for five years. As Suetonius wrote, “the underlying motive of every campaign [after he returned to Rome] was that Augustus [Octavian] felt it his duty, above all, to avenge Caesar.” The Triumvirate’s first task was to draw up a list of those who had taken part in the conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar. Hundreds of people were arrested and executed, or jailed and their property declared forfeit. This removed all potential enemies. It also hugely enriched the members of the Triumvirate with money for a large army to search for two major conspirators, Cassius and Brutus. These two were defeated at the Battle of Philippi in Macedonia and committed suicide. The Triumvirate then divided the Roman Empire among them. Lepidus moved to Africa to rule. The western part of the empire, including Italy, was in the hands of Octavian, who controlled Rome. The eastern part, which included Egypt, was under Mark Antony’s control. Mark Antony had been smitten by Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt, and sailed to Egypt, 61 C 62 Caesar, Augustus becoming her lover and fathering three children with her. Needing a proper Roman wife, Mark Antony married Octavian’s sister Octavia Minor in 40 b.c.e. and had two daughters, both named Antonia. Three years later, in 37 b.c.e., he deserted Octavia and lived openly with Cleopatra. Octavian, in the meantime, was building up important alliances in Rome and consolidating his power base. Mark Antony was becoming a troublesome rival to Octavian. However, to the public, Mark Antony was clearly linked with Julius Caesar’s triumphs and was an important Roman military figure. Octavian allowed rumors to be spread that Mark Antony was becoming more and more an Egyptian and less a Roman. Mark Antony spread rumors that alleged that Julius Caesar had seduced Octavian. The situation became extremely nasty as Mark Antony sent many letters undermining Octavian to key Roman figures. THE BATTLE OF ACTIUM Octavian felt it necessary to do away with his rival, yet he and the Roman government did not wish it to be viewed as another civil war. The Senate officially declared war on Cleopatra in 32 b.c.e. and officially stripped Mark Antony of his title as triumvir. Mark Antony and Cleopatra were anxious to prevent Octavian from reaching Egypt and moved with their forces and fleet to the west coast of Greece, in what was clearly a preparation to invade Italy itself. Octavian led his legions and fleet to Greece as well, and on September 2, 31 b.c.e., the issue was decided at the Battle of Actium. It was a massive naval battle with a total of more than 400 vessels. Agrippa, in charge of Octavian’s navy, formed his fleet into a center and two wings of equal strength. Mark Antony drew up his ships in the same formation, but left 60 vessels under Cleopatra in reserve. As the two fleets clashed, Mark Antony’s center panicked and fled, along with his left wing. Mark Antony realized the battle was lost and signaled to Cleopatra to escape, and he followed. Antony’s entire fleet was destroyed and upon seeing this, his land legions fled in the face of Octavian’s armies. In Egypt, in 30 b.c.e., upon being told erroneously that Cleopatra had committed suicide, Mark Antony killed himself. Cleopatra was captured and told that she would be taken to Rome as a captive and taken through the streets in procession. Rather than be taken captive she committed suicide. Octavian then annexed Egypt and returned to Rome in triumph. The eastern half of the empire, loyal to Mark Antony, swore allegiance to Rome and Octavian. Even with no major rivals, Octavian was wary of his public image and the perception of his power. Octavian had inherited the support of the plebeians, the poor of Rome, who had been the mainstay of Julius Caesar’s power base in the city, and was careful to stay in the Senate’s good graces. At the instigation of the Senate he become proconsul in 27 b.c.e. Later the same year the Senate invested him with the titles princeps and augustus, the latter of which he never used. In some ways the title was more a religious than a political one, whereas Princeps translated as “first citizen” and was used to signify a semi-imperial authority. THE SECOND SETTLEMENT In 23 b.c.e. Octavian achieved what became known as the “Second Settlement,” an agreement between himself and the Senate. He was invested by the Senate with the powers of a tribune. This gave him the power to call the Senate at his will and to veto any decisions they made. He had control of all soldiers in Rome and was the head of all Roman forces throughout the empire. He was also granted imperium proconsulare maius (“imperium over all the proconsuls”), which allowed him singly to act as he saw fit in any province and overturn the decisions of any provincial governor. In effect he now had dictatorial powers. Octavian was still treading cautiously and using a thin veneer of legitimacy. Although the ruling class could see Octavian gaining too much power, many aspects of this Second Settlement were lost on the poor of Rome who still supported him as the “defender of the people.” When Octavian did not stand for election as consul in 22 b.c.e., some plebeians felt that he was being forced from power by the Senate. As a result in 22 b.c.e. and in the next two years the people only elected one consul in order to leave the other position open for Octavian. In 19 b.c.e. the Senate voted to allow Augustus to wear the insignia of a consul before them and in public. Six years later Marcus Aemilius Lepidus died. Octavian took the religious position of pontifex maximus, essentially as the high priest of the Roman religion. OCTAVIAN’S RULE With Rome at peace Octavian instituted military reforms. He reduced the size of the army from 501,000 to 300,000. Legions were stationed at the frontiers of the empire, which kept commanders from interfering in Roman politics. He formed the Praetorian Guard, which consisted of 10 cohorts of 1,000 men. The Praetorian Guard was garrisoned in Rome, provided protection for Caesar, Julius 63 Octavian, and were the only soldiers allowed in Italy. With massive amounts of money flowing to the government coffers in Rome, Octavian was generous in paying the soldiers and in ensuring that veterans were able to have their own land. Octavian overhauled the tax system to ensure as much revenue as possible. By 6 c.e. the treasury at the capital controlled the fiscal arrangements for the entire Roman Empire. He also ordered a tax census of every person in his empire. In the Bible, Luke writes: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be taxed” (Luke 2:1). This is the edict that caused Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem where Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth was born. Money was channeled into the building of new roads throughout the empire, a system of mail delivery, and also a fire brigade and police force for Rome. In addition to his own actions, Octavian encouraged others to undertake public works. Octavian was later to boast that he “found Rome made of brick and left it in marble.” As with so many other rulers, Octavian is accused of overtaxing agriculture and spending the money on grandiose projects and games. However, he did remarkably well given that Rome was no longer invading other countries and carting their treasuries home. Octavian was a generous benefactor to the arts. He allocated much in commissions to sculptors and artists, poets and writers. This period was the golden age of Roman literature. Many epic works come to us from this time. Virgil wrote the Aeneid about the founding of Rome by Aeneas. Later in his rule Octavian became a moralist, creating laws to try to change Roman society. He launched a morality crusade to restrict prostitution and homosexuality, as well as adultery, but in Rome this was not successful. THE SUCCESSION One of the issues which overshadowed the latter part of Octavian’s reign was succession. Octavian had one child, his daughter Julia. Octavian died on August 19, 14 c.e., after adopting his stepson Tiberius Claudius, son of his third wife, Livia Drusilla. Tiberius became the next emperor, named Tiberius Caesar Augustus. Octavian was proclaimed a god. In addition the sixth month of the year, then known as Sextilis, was renamed Augustus (August) after him. See also Roman golden and silver ages; Roman historians; Rome: building, engineers; Rome: government. Further reading: Barrett, Anthony A. Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002; Holland, Richard. Augustus: Godfather of Europe. Stroud, UK: Sutton, 2005; Jones, A. H. M. Augustus. London: Chatto and Windus, 1970; MacMullen, Ramsay. Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000; Millar, Fergus, and E. Segal, eds. Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984; Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1977; Wallace-Hadrill, A. Augustan Rome. London: Classical Press, 2004; Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Justin Corfield Caesar, Julius (100–44 b.c.e.) Roman general Gaius Julius Caesar expanded the Roman Empire into a power that included half of Europe. According to legend, he was a descendant of Aeneas, the Trojan prince who founded Rome, himself the son of the Greek goddess Aphrodite or the Roman Venus. EARLY LIFE AND THE POLITICS OF ROME Julius Caesar grew up with many political connections through his father Gaius Julius Caesar, who had been a praetor, and his uncle Gaius Marius, a war hero and politician who had married his father’s sister Julia. His mother was Aurelia Cotta. The politics in Rome were embroiled between those who wanted a populous electorate, the populares, and those who wanted aristocratic rule, the optimates. Caesar’s uncle Marius was a popularis. In his oposition was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, an optimas. Both were political leaders. These opposing political camps caused many civil wars, coups, and attempted coups. Caesar’s life, politics, and military career were directly affected by which camp was holding power. At this time King Mithridates of Pontus, on the south coast of the Black Sea, threatened Rome’s eastern provinces. Sulla was chosen to lead his army against Mithridates. While he departed Rome to join his army, the government appointed Marius to lead the war against Mithridates. Sulla received word of this and marched on Rome and seized power. Marius fled to Africa. The appointment was returned to Sulla, and his army marched to the eastern provinces. Marius and his army then marched on Rome. He and his allies, 64 Caesar, Julius including Lucius Cornelius Cinna, seized power. There was purge of the supporters of Sulla. Marius died in 86 b.c.e., but his faction remained in power. Julius Caesar was allied with Cinna and married his daughter Cornelia in 84 b.c.e. Sulla was victorious in the east and marched on Rome. He waged war against the army of Marius and defeated them in 82 b.c.e. Sulla had himself declared dictator and initiated a massive purge of the populares. Caesar was on this list, being related to Marius and Cinna. Caesar’s political appointment, inheritance, and wife’s dowry was appropriated. He was in hiding but was reprieved because his mother’s family had influence with Sulla. MILITARY CAREER Caesar joined the army and left Rome, and became an aide of the governor of Asia. There he was involved in a military victory against Mithradates VI, king of Pontus. In this action he was awarded the corona civica, or Civic Crown, one of the highest Roman military decorations. Sulla retired as dictator and died in 78 b.c.e. Julius Caesar returned to Rome at this time. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, a close ally of his, had attempted a failed coup against the Sullan government. Julius Caesar sailed to Rhodes to study in 75 b.c.e. He was captured by pirates and ransomed for 50 talents of gold. Later, Caesar crucified the pirates. After this he again led an army against the king of Pontus. He went on to Rhodes to study under Apollonius Molo, who had taught Cicero. Caesar returned to Rome in 72 b.c.e., where he was elected as a military tribune. He then became quaestor and prepared to fulfill this position with the army in Hispania (Spain) in 69 b.c.e. He served as quaestor in western Hispania and returned to Rome and married Pompeia, the granddaughter of Sulla. He was elected aedile. After this Caesar was then elected pontifex maximus, the chief priest of Roman. He was elected praetor in 62 b.c.e. He was appointed propraetor in 61 b.c.e. and left Rome to govern Hispania Ulterior (Furthest Spain). In western Hispania he led the conquest of the Callaici and Lusitani people. His army hailed him as imperator, and he entered Rome in triumph. Caesar wanted to be consul, which was the highest office in the Republic, and entered Rome to run for consul in 60 b.c.e. In his campaign for consul of Rome, Caesar allied himself to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great), a formidable military figure with a long-term goal to get free land for his veterans to settle. Marcus Licinius Crassus, said to be the richest man in all of Rome, joined them in a three-person political alliance for power. Caesar provided the political skills, Pompey the influence, and Crassus the money. To cement the alliance, Pompey married Caesar’s only daughter, Julia. In the same year Caesar married Calpurnia, the daughter of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, who would be elected consul the year after. Their political opponents called their powerful political alliance “the three-headed monster.” This was the First Triumvirate. In 59 b.c.e. Caesar won as consul, but his opposition, Bibulus, won the other co-consul position. Caesar turned Pompey’s measures into law and pushed Crassus’s interests. THE GALLIC WARS Caesar became proconsul of Gaul in 58 b.c.e. His Gallic Wars lasted from 58 to 49 b.c.e. Caesar began with a lightning campaign in Helvetii (modern-day Switzerland). The following year he conquered the Belgic confederacy (in modern-day Belgium) and the Nervii. Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus met in Caesar’s province in 56 b.c.e. to renew their Triumvirate. By now Caesar had taken great riches in battle from the Gauls. By the end of 56 b.c.e. he had decided to annex all of Gaul (modern-day France). Pompey and Crassus would be consuls the following year and promised to extend his proconsulship of Gaul for five more years. With this Caesar became even more ambitious. Photo of a woodcut depicting the triumph of Julius Caesar, with a sign bearing his famous slogan, “Veni, vidi, vici.” Caesar, Julius 65 In the middle of 55 b.c.e. he planned an invasion of Britain. Caesar’s army marched to the river Thames and defeated a large force, capturing the fort of King Cassivelaunus and then returned to Gaul. Caesar’s strong political power base was waning, however, and his alliance with Pompey was weakening. Crassus received command of the eastern armies but was defeated by the Parthians, and he died in the battle. Gauls had united under Vercingetorix. In 52 b.c.e. Caesar decided to attack with a siege at Alesia, and 250,000 Gauls arrived to aid Alesia in fighting the Romans. The Romans held, and Caesar’s cavalry was able to surprise the Gauls from the rear, sending them fleeing. Alesia surrendered, and the population was enslaved. In politics, there was rioting Rome and with one consul dead (Crassus), Pompey served as “consul without a colleague.” With Caesar’s siege of Uxellodunum in 51 b.c.e., Gaul was conquered. During his campaigns Caesar wrote seven books, which form Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War). According to Plutarch, Caesar had conquered 800 cities and subdued 300 tribes. There are figures cited that he had 1 million men and boys become Roman slaves and left another 3 million dead on battlefields. CIVIL WAR Caesar was victorious as a general, but his political position was less secure. Pompey and Caesar were maneuvered into a public split, with Pompey now siding with the optimates. The Senate had ended Caesar’s term as proconsul and ordered him to disband his army and return to Rome. Without a government position he would face charges and prosecution. It was against Roman law for any army from a province to cross the border of the river Rubicon into Italy. By law this act was a rebellion against Rome. Caesar said, “Alea iacta est” (“The die is cast”), and led his army across the river toward Rome on January 10, 49 b.c.e. Caesar quickly advanced to Rome with only the XIII Legion. His opponents fled Rome. Pompey’s legions were stationed in Hispania. He and the Senate fled to Brundisium and sailed to the east. Caesar set up his own senate and was declared dictator by them, with Mark Antony as his equerry. He then declared a policy of clemency for all. Caesar tried to make peace with Pompey, but civil war was inevitable. Caesar knew that he had to lead his legions to Hispania, to prevent Pompey’s army from traveling to the East. With Marcus Aemilius Lepidus in charge of Rome and Mark Antony in control of Italy, Caesar set off for Hispania, where he defeated an ally of Pompey and his army. Caesar resigned as dictator and was elected consul. He then headed for Greece and on July 10, 48 b.c.e., attacked Pompey at Dyrrachium (modern-day Durres or Durazzo, the main port in Albania). Caesar narrowly escaped defeat but smashed Pompey’s forces at Pharsalus in Greece on August 9. JULIUS CAESAR IN EGYPT Pompey fled from Greece to Egypt, with Caesar pursuing him. When Caesar arrived in Egypt he was presented with Pompey’s head. An Egyptian army officer had slain him. Caesar is reported to have wept. Egypt was ruled from its capital city, Alexandria, by the Ptolemy dynasty, the descendents of the general of Alexander the Great. War had broken out in Egypt over who was to rule, between Cleopatra VII and her brother and husband Ptolemy XIII. Each had their armies and supporters. Caesar was smitten by Cleopatra’s great beauty. He led his army against the opposing army and deposed Ptolemy XIII. A romance between Caesar and Cleopatra continued for many years. Caesar spent the first part of 47 b.c.e. in Egypt, leaving to attack King Pharnaces II of Pontus. His victory at the Battle of Zela in May was so quick that Caesar sent to Rome his now famous message, “Veni, vidi, vici” (“I came, I saw, I conquered”). CIVIL WAR AGAINST THE SONS OF POMPEY Evading the enemy fleet, Caesar reached the African coast and marched his army inland. Finally Caesar’s forces, estimated at 40,000, took on a depleted opposition of 60,000. In February at Thapsus he defeated them, losing only 1,000 men to Metellus Scipio’s 10,000. In May Caesar again returned to Rome in triumph. The sons of Pompey, Gnaeus Pompeius and Sextus Pompeius, were rallying forces against Caesar and had raised an army in Hispania. Caesar took a small force of veterans to fight them. Once in Hispania he quickly enlisted more veterans who had settled in the region after the Ilerda campaign. He amassed an army of 40,000 to that of Pompey’s sons army of 50,000–60,000 men. Caesar attacked in the Battle of Munda, on March 17, 45 b.c.e., and was able to drive Pompey’s sons’ men from the field. In September 45 b.c.e. Caesar returned to Rome, the unchallenged ruler of the Roman Republic, and was given the title imperator. ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR In Rome, Caesar wrote his will, naming his great-nephew Octavian as his heir and adopting him as his son. By 44 b.c.e. Caesar had been named dictator perpetuus. 66 Cambyses II His opponents saw this as the end of the Republic and the political power of the aristocracy, and a conspiracy grew. The assassination plans were for March 15—the Ides of March—when Caesar would meet the Senate. There were 20 men in the conspiracy. It is thought that Brutus went along with the assassination because he thought that Caesar would end the Roman Republic. Caesar entered the Senate, and hired gladiators blocked the outside door. Trebonius detained Mark Antony with conversation. As Caesar approached the senators, he was stabbed 23 times. The murder of Caesar so enraged many in Rome that they eagerly listened to Mark Antony give a eulogy. Mark Antony and Octavian seized power and went on to avenge the death of Caesar, defeating the forces of Brutus and the chief conspirator, Cassius, in Greece before they fell out with each other. Two years after his death, Julius Caesar was formally declared a god as Divus Iulius (Divine Julius). See also Aeneid; Caesar, Augustus; Cato, Marcus Porcius (the Younger); Roman historians; Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: government. Further reading: Adcock, F. E. Caesar as a Man of Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956; Balsdon, J. P. V. D. Julius Caesar and Rome. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1967; Caesar. The Civil War. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1978; ———. The Conquest of Gaul. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1982; Dyck, Ludwig Heinrich. “Expedition to Unknown Shores.” Military Heritage (April 2005); ———. “Germanic Tribe Run Amok.” Military Heritage (August 2004); Fuller, J. F. C. Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier and Tyrant. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1965; Gelzer, M. Caesar: Politician and Statesman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968; Grant, Michael. Julius Caesar. London: Chancellor Press, 1969; Niderost, Eric. “Caesar and Alesia.” Military Heritage (October 1999); Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1977; Plutarch. Fall of the Roman Republic. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1970. Justin Corfield Cambyses II (c. 560–522 b.c.e.) Persian ruler Cambyses II was the eldest son of Cyrus II, the founder of the Achaemenid (or Persian) Empire, whose father was Cambyses I. The exact date of his birth is not known but is estimated to be around 560 b.c.e., and he was said by the Greek writer Herodotus of Halicarnassus to be the eldest son of Cassandane, daughter of Pharnaspes, also a member of the Achaemenid ruling family. Cyrus took control of Babylonia in 539 b.c.e. and returned to Ecbatana, one of the royal capitals, leaving his son Cambyses as his representative. Cambyses made his headquarters at Sippar, a town to the north of the city of Babylon. However, following his father’s policy, he was active in taking part in the spring New Year ceremonies that took place in Babylon. For eight years, on behalf of his father, Cambyses took charge of the area of Babylonia, and the evidence we have suggests a prince hard at work in his routine duties. In 530 b.c.e. his father, Cyrus, set off to solve problems on the northeastern border of his empire and, following Persian custom, appointed Cambyses his regent, at the same time giving him permission to be called king of Babylon. News of his father’s death in action reached Cambyses in Babylonia in September 530 b.c.e., and he assumed the full title King of Babylon, King of Lands, and by local custom married his two sisters, Atossa and Roxana. The most significant event of Cambyses’ reign was his invasion of Egypt, which began a few years after his accession. Most likely before he left Persia for the invasion Cambyses had his brother, variously called Bardiya or Smerdis, quietly killed as a precaution against his leading a rebellion in the king’s absence. Cambyses crossed the Sinai desert, Egypt’s first line of defense, and met the Egyptian army under the command of Psamtik III, at Pelusium. The battle went the Persian way not least because of the treachery of Polycrates of Samos, whose navy Psamtik erroneously thought he had secured but who on the day of combat fought for Cambyses. Heliopolis (the site of modernday Cairo) was soon thereafter taken by siege, Psamtik fled across the river to Memphis, which early in 525 b.c.e. was also taken, and Cambyses was proclaimed the new pharaoh. A year later Cambyses marched south down the Nile and occupied Thebes. From there he considered invading Ethiopia but decided to stop at the border, Ethiopia becoming a vassal state. There is much debate as to how Cambyses behaved toward the religion of the Egyptians. Herodotus claims that he committed various atrocities and that this was due to Cambyses’ being mad. However, not everyone agrees with Herodotus, and it is very possible that what Herodotus records is propaganda against Cambyses after Darius I’s accession in 522 b.c.e. Cappadocians 67 In the spring of 522 b.c.e. a man called Gaumata, claiming to be Cambyses’ brother Bardiya, seized the Achaemenid throne. Cambyses began the journey back to Persia to deal with the usurper but died early on in the journey. Whether his death was from suicide or from accidental poisoning following a sword wound is still debated. See also Babylon, later periods; Ethiopia, ancient; Fertile Crescent; Marathon, Battle of; Medes, Persians, and Elamites; Persepolis, Susa, and Ecbatana; Persian invasions. Further reading: Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Phoenix Books, University of Chicago Press, 1959; Wiesehofer, Josef. Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD. London: I. B. Tauris, 1996. Andrew Pettman Cappadocians (third–fourth centuries c.e.) Cappadocia, a Roman province from 17 c.e., became Christianized in the second century c.e. Cappadocia was a rural province, and its capital Mazica, later called Caesarea, was its only major city. Characteristic of theology in Cappadocia was the early influence of Origen on the third-century Cappadocian church leaders Alexander (after 212 c.e., bishop of Jerusalem and a friend of Origen) and Firmilian, the bishop of Caesarea (230–269 c.e.). Origen himself escaped to Cappadocia during the persecution of Maximinus Thrax (235–238 c.e.). His impact remained present in the work of the Cappadocian writers Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus. Basil became bishop of Caesarea in 370 c.e., having studied rhetoric and other disciplines at home in Caesarea, Constantinople, and Athens. In Athens he met Gregory Nazianzus, who would become a lifelong friend and ally against the neo-Arian writers Eunomius and Aetius. From a tour of the Christian monasteries in the Near East after 355 c.e., he gained his lifelong devotion to the ascetic life and concern for monastics. This experience and encouragement from his sister Macrina, who sometimes is spoken of as “the fourth Cappadocian theologian,” persuaded him to be baptized. As successor of Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil was active in theological, political, and ecclesiastical conflicts. His fight against the neo-Arians gained him the opposition of the Arian emperor Valens (364–378 c.e.), who divided the province of Cappadocia in two. A struggle with the Arian bishop Anthimus of Tyana over the control of churches in this new province ensued. Basil ordained his brother Gregory to the see of Nyssa (nominally now under Anthimus’s control). Unsuccessfully he also attempted to ordain Gregory Nazianzus to the see of Sasima. Basil was also embroiled in a controversy with the Arian bishop Eustathius of Sebaste, who had mentored Basil. Basil died in 379, leaving the resolution of the neo-Arian crisis to the two Cappadocian Gregories. Basil’s brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 331–395 c.e.) assumed the mantle of the struggle against the neo- Arians after Basil’s death. His theological position was critical at the Council of Constantinople (381). There the anti-Arian emperor Theodosius I declared communion with Gregory one of the conditions for orthodoxy. Gregory traveled to Arabia and Jerusalem to mediate ecclesiastical disputes. His writings addressed questions of the Trinitarian controversies (Against Eunomius, Ad Petrum, Refutatio confessionis Eunomii) and argued against the Christology of Apollinaris (Ad Theophilum, Adversus Apollinaristas, Antirheticus adversus Apollinarem). He composed a hagiobiography of his sister, the Life of Macrina. His theology owes much to Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Origen. His writings assert both the full divinity and the full humanity of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth, although in opposition to Origen and Neoplatonism he rejected the preexistence of souls. His writings exhibited great influence on the thought of speculative theologians such as john damascene, Gregory Palamas, and Duns Scotus. Basil and Gregory’s friend, Gregory Nazianzus (c. 329–390), was bishop of Constantinople (379– 381) and represented the imperial city at the Council of Constantinople. Gregory’s opponents among the Alexandrian and Macedonian bishops objected to his appointment to Constantinople, and Gregory, citing poor health, returned to Nazianzus. He was eventually persuaded to become bishop of that city (Basil had appointed him as auxiliary bishop earlier). In 384 he left Nazianzus and returned to his family estate in Arianzus, where he devoted himself to writing until his death in 390. Gregory’s Orations are among his most important works, most of which were delivered for festivals. As a theologian, Gregory opposed the assumptions of the Eunomians that language was a Godgiven system, that names were the only way of access to the essence of the thing named, and that statements about God’s essence were a matter of logical inference. 68 Caracalla, Edict of Gregory contended that God is known only insofar as he has revealed himself to humanity. Like the other Cappadocians, Gregory expressed the single nature of the Trinitarian Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and the full humanity and divinity of Christ. Gregory maintained that the Son of God became human so that human beings could participate in God’s divinity. Gregory’s other writings include a collection of his letters, which he assembled before his death. See also Arianism; Christian Dualism (Gnosticism); Christianity, early; Greek Church; Latin Church; monasticism. Further reading: Holman, Susan R. The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; Meredith, Anthony. The Cappadocians. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995; Van Dam, Raymond. Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2003. Robert R. Phenix, Jr. Caracalla, Edict of (212 c.e.) The Roman emperor Caracalla (or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) issued the Edict of Caracalla, also known as the Constitutio Antoniniana or Edict of Antoninus, in 212 c.e. Prior to this Roman citizenship had been highly treasured and was extended only to people from Rome, children of existing citizens, and people who had served a term in the military, being gradually extended to cover all the freeborn people in the Italian peninsula. The Edict of Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to include all freeborn men throughout the Roman Empire and gave all freeborn women in the empire the same rights as Roman women. Caracalla was born in Gaul in 186 c.e., the son of the future emperor Septimus Severus. When Caracalla was born he was called Lucius Septimius Bassianus, and when he was seven, his name was changed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to emphasize his family’s connection with the late emperor Marcus Aurelius. Caracalla was a nickname given to him when he was a young man on account of the Gallic hooded tunic that he often wore. Caracalla’s father had become emperor in 193 and died in 211. Caracalla and his brother Publius Septimius Antoninius Geta became co-emperors, but Caracalla was anxious to reign by himself, and Geta and his own father-in-law, Gaius Fulvius Plautianus, were both murdered soon afterward. The method by which Caracalla came to power led to public criticism, and a satire play was produced in the city of Alexandria in Egypt. In 215 Caracalla killed a deputation from the city and then let his soldiers slaughter up to 20,000 people in Alexandria. Caracalla had once been told by his father to look after the army, and to this end he gave the legionnaires pay of 675–750 denarii (raised from 500 denarii), as well as other benefits. This was largely because the period before Caracalla become emperor had been one of significant inflation. Caracalla not only ensured that were the salaries raised, but also soldiers were partially paid in kind—with food and materials—which would obviously not be affected by price rises. This was meant not only to reward the soldiers and ensure their loyalty but also to try to get more people to join the Roman army. This has long been suggested as one of the reasons for Caracalla’s edict. However, there were more pressing reasons. There had not been enough money in the treasury for the pay rise for the soldiers, so the silver content in Roman coins was lowered by a quarter. The real reason for the edict can clearly be seen as being connected with revenue raising. Traditionally Roman citizens were freeborn people who lived in the city of Rome. In addition, descendants of Roman citizens around the empire had citizenship, along with men who had served in the army (as was the case during the Roman Republic) and also auxiliaries (from the reign of Augustus). The Romans also allowed client kings, nobles, and others to become Roman citizens. In Acts of the Apostles, Paul proclaims his Roman citizenship several times. As well as the obvious advantages in being a Roman citizen, there were several disadvantages. All Roman citizens paid two taxes from which noncitizens were exempt. The first was inheritance taxes, which were paid by the beneficiaries on the death of somebody who left them money or property. Initially in the Roman Empire it was impractical to levy inheritance taxes on everybody, but by the time of Caracalla there was a large middle class in the empire and well-regulated methods of collecting taxes. The other tax that was levied on Roman citizens was an indirect tax when slaves were emancipated. Because of inflation, the monetary value of slaves had risen, and with growing affluence, more masters were freeing their slaves, who often continued to work for them; many slaves were able to buy their own freedom. Caracalla was also responsible for the building of a large complex in Rome that became known as the Carthage 69 Baths Carthage 69 of Caracalla. However, he became increasingly unpopular with many in the Roman Empire. He was killed on April 8, 217, at Harran, Parthia. The account by Cassius Dio says that he was slain when he was relieving himself, with a single stroke of the sword. See also Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: government. Further reading: Birley, Anthony, ed. Lives of the Later Caesars. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1976; Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1996. Justin Corfield Carthage The city of Carthage in North Africa (modern-day Tunisia) was the capital of the Carthaginian empire that controlled parts of the Mediterranean from the seventh century b.c.e. until it was destroyed in 146 b.c.e. Tradition has the city founded by Queen Dido, from Tyre, a Phoenician city in modern-day Lebanon. According to that legend, after Troy was sacked by the Greeks, Prince Aeneas fled by sea and was shipwrecked there. Queen Dido fell in love with him, but his destiny was to found Rome. Roman historians give different dates for the founding of Carthage. Timaeus gives c. 814 b.c.e., but Apion states 751 b.c.e. The earliest known tombs date from 725–700 b.c.e. Carthage was founded for trade, which created great wealth and helped it to dominate parts of North Africa and the central and eastern Mediterranean. Metals from North Africa were traded for wine, cloth, and pottery. By the sixth century b.c.e. it was ruled by an aristocratic oligarchy through a senate. Carthaginian trade in Sicily and Italy led to clashes with the Greeks and the Etruscans. Carthage occupied the island of Ibiza off the Mediterranean coast of Iberia in 591 b.c.e, and in the 540s b.c.e. it conquered Sardinia. The city lay on a peninsula in the gulf of Tunis. The Greek historian Appian recorded that it had three rows of walls each 45 feet tall and 30 feet wide, with barracks for 24,000 men and stables for 4,000 horses and 300 elephants. Carthage had two great harbors between the peninsula and the mainland. Large iron chains could be raised at the mouth of the harbor as protection from attacks. Vessels came from all parts of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coasts of Africa, Spain, France and Britain. They had trade in Tyrian royal purple dye, Tyrian royal blue dye, and dyed fabrics, tin for bronze, silver, gold, lumber, wine, cloth, pottery, carpets, jewelry, lamps, and other goods. Beyond this harbor was the military harbor. The entrance was narrow with a tall watchtower overlooking the harbors and sea. The Greek writer Appian reported that 220 ships could be accommodated. The First Punic War broke out with Rome over disputes in Sicily regarding control of the city of Messana (modern, Messina, Sicily) in 265 b.c.e. The Romans sent a force to Africa. At the Battle of Tunes (Tunis) in 255 b.c.e., near the city of Carthage, the Carthaginians, with Greek mercenaries, destroyed the Roman army. The defeat of Rome left Carthage safe. Carthage was forced to leave Sicily after its navy was defeated in 241 b.c.e. Romans captured the island of Sardinia in 238 b.c.e. Carthage then focused on Iberian Peninsula territory. There the Carthaginians built the city of New Carthage (present-day Cartagena). From there Commander Hamilcar Barca and his son Hannibal launched an attack on Rome in the Second Punic War in 219 b.c.e. Roman commander Scipio landed in North Africa in 204 b.c.e. Hannibal’s army of 18,000 men left Italy for Carthage and raised a large army. He met the Romans and Numidians near Carthage at Zama in 202 b.c.e. Hannibal was defeated. The Romans forced the city to hand over all its warships and elephants and pay a massive indemnity to Rome. In 146 b.c.e. Roman forces leveled Carthage and then plowed the fields with salt so that no one could grow food there and rebuild. Later, Rome built Colonia Julia Carthago, the capital of Roman Africa. See also Aeneid; Phoenician colonies; Syracuse. Further reading: Charles-Picard, Gilbert, and Colette Charles-Picard. Daily Life in Carthage at the Time of Hannibal. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961; ———. The Life and Death of Carthage. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1968; de Beer, Sir Gavin. Hannibal: The Struggle for Power in the Mediterranean. London: Thames and Hudson, 1969; Khun de Prorok, Count Byron. “Ancient Carthage in the Light of Modern Excavation.” National Geographic (April 1924); Livy. Rome and the Mediterranean. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1976; ———. The War with Hannibal. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1965; Warmington, B. H. Carthage. London: Robert Hale, 1960. Justin Corfield 70 caste caste Caste, or class, is English for the Sanskrit word varna, which categorizes the Hindus of India into four broad classifications. The Rig-Veda, the holiest text of Hinduism, mentions many occupations and divides the Aryan people into broad categories. For example, the Hymn of the Primeval Man in the Rig-Veda says: When they divided the Man, Into how many parts did they divide him? What was his mouth, what were his arms, What were his thighs and feet called? The brahman was his mouth, Of his arms was made the warrior, His thighs became the vaisya, Of his feet the sudra was born. Early Aryan society already had class divisions. In India the class stratification became more rigid due to color consciousness—differences in skin color between the Indo-European Aryans and the indigenous peoples— thus the use of the word varna, which originally meant “covering,” associated with the color of the skin covering people’s bodies to differentiate the status of different categories of people. The four varna, or broad classifications of peoples of India, were as follows: 1. Brahman: priests, teachers, and intellectuals who presided at religious ceremonies, studied, and transmitted religious knowledge. 2. Kshatriya: warriors, princes, and political leaders, the people who spearheaded the invasion and settlement of northern India and ruled the land. 3. Vaisya: landowners, artisans, and all free people of Aryan society. 4. Sudra: dasas, or indigenous people, who were dark skinned and became serfs and servants. The idea of varna became deeply embedded in Aryan, and later Hindu, society. When Aryan religious concepts later spread to Dravidian southern India, sharp distinctions were also enforced there between the three higher (or Aryan) castes and sudras. The three high, or Aryan, castes were called “twice born,” because of a sacred thread ceremony or religious birth as they entered manhood, which gave them access to Vedic lore and rituals. Sudras were not eligible, which justified their exclusion from certain religious rites, and their low status. The Rig-Veda did not mention “untouchables” as a group of people. However, early Aryans were deeply concerned with ritual pollution, which was likely the origin of the Untouchables. A subclass of Untouchables emerged, who performed “unclean” tasks, such as handling the carcasses of dead animals, tanning, and sweeping dirt and ashes from cremation grounds. After the late Vedic age Indians defined caste much more narrowly. Besides belonging to a caste, each person belonged to a jati, which was defined as belonging to endogamous groups related by birth (marriage is only legitimate to members within the group), commensality (food can only be received between members of the same or a higher group), and craft exclusiveness (craft or profession can only be inherited; no one can take up another profession). Thus in operation the caste or class system was a combination of varna and jati systems. Caste had its origins in the class and occupational groups in early Aryan society. It acquired a deep color consciousness as it broadened to include the people of the Indus civilization and other indigenous people the Aryans encountered as they expanded throughout northern India. It continued to develop over the succeeding centuries as a result of association between many racial groups into a single social system. See also Aryan invasion; Vedas. Further reading: Dutt, Nripendra K. Origins and Growth of Caste in India. Calcutta, India: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1968; Gupta, A. R. Caste Hierarchy and Social Change (A Study of Myth and Reality). New Delhi, India: Jyostna Prakashan, 1984; Jaiswal, Suvira. Caste, Origin, Function and Dimension of Change. New Delhi, India: Manohar Publications, 1998. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Cato, Marcus Porcius (the Younger) (95–46 b.c.e.) Roman statesman The great-grandson of the legendary Marcus Porcius Cato (the Censor), the younger Cato, orphaned at an early age, received his education through his maternal uncle, Marcus Livius Drusus, and steeped his mind in Stoicism and politics. As a good practitioner of Stoic philosophy, he subjected himself to the most rigorous of physical disciplines, ate sparingly, and lived simply. Cato’s military career began with his service in 72 b.c.e. during the Servile War against Spartacus and his followers. As a military tribune in Macedonia in 67 b.c.e., he served alongside his men and shared in cave paintings 71 their hardships and sacrifices. While in Macedonia, his brother Caepio died, and he journeyed to the Middle East, probably in an attempt to assuage his grief. When Cato returned to Rome in 64 b.c.e. he won election as a quaestor, dealing with the financial interests of the Roman state. Known for his honesty and integrity, Cato discovered that former quaestors had participated in fraud and murder, and he responded to the revelations by promptly bringing the offenders to justice. He left office amid much public praise and gratitude. In 63 b.c.e. Cato won election to the tribune of the plebs, an office devised to protect the plebeians (the less privileged) from arbitrary treatment by the patrician (privileged) class. Once in office Cato fought Julius Caesar at every opportunity, disliking Casear’s morals and actions. Caesar, in turn, had Cato arrested for obstructionism. Once released, Cato attempted to stop Caesar from receiving a five-year appointment as a provincial governor, but to no avail. Pompey also stood in opposition to Cato, but rather than continually battle his adversary, Pompey proposed an alliance through marriage to one of Cato’s relatives. Cato, believing it was simply a way for Pompey to gain political influence, would not permit the marriage. It may have been, as Plutarch implies in his brief biography of Cato, a fatal mistake, because Pompey then married Caesar’s daughter, Julia, a union that cemented the relationship between the two leaders—a relationship that eventually destroyed constitutional government in Rome. In 58 b.c.e. Clodius, a tribune, hoping to rid Rome of the troublesome Cato, appointed him governor of Cyprus. As governor, Cato was meticulous in his record keeping and was fiscally responsible. He returned to Rome two years later amid great accolades for his service in Cyprus. In 54 b.c.e., as the First Triumvirate disintegrated, Cato became a praetor, an official in charge of judicial affairs, and used his office to halt Caesar’s schemes. In 53 b.c.e. Cato lost an election for one of the two consulships and then retired from public service. When one of the consuls, Crassus, died at Carrhae that summer, Cato chose to accept Pompey as sole consul of the state. Civil war ensued in 49 b.c.e., and Caesar’s army crossed the Rubicon bound for Rome. Cato took command of the Republican forces in Sicily, but outnumbered, he left the island without fighting a battle and then chose to follow Pompey to Greece. Caesar defeated Pompey’s forces at Pharsalus on August 9, 48 b.c.e., and shortly after the debacle, the Egyptians assassinated Pompey as he disembarked on their shores. Cato and the military commander, Quintus Caecilius Metellius Pius Scipio, fled to Africa and continued to resist Caesar from Utica. Caesar pursued Cato and his allies; in February 46 b.c.e., Caesar defeated Scipio’s forces at the Battle of Thapsus. When Cato received word of Scipio’s defeat in 46 b.c.e., he chose to commit suicide rather than live under the rule of Caesar. Remembered for his Stoic lifestyle, integrity, and Republican ideals, Cato fought until the day of his death to preserve the Roman Republic and remains for many a model of virtue in public service. See also Rome: government. Further reading: Boatwright, Mary T., Daniel J. Gargola, and Richard J. A. Talbert. The Romans: From Village to Empire, a History of Ancient Rome from the Earliest Times to Constantine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; Chilver, G. E. F., and M. T. Griffin. “Cato the Younger.” In S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; Plutarch. Cato the Younger. London: London Association of Classical Teachers, 1984. James S. Baugess cave paintings The oldest known cave paintings were found in the Chauvet Cave, located in southeast France. Discovered in 1994, the cave was filled with images of diverse animal species, including rhinoceroses, cats, and bears. Radiocarbon dating showed the images to be more than 30,000 years old. Eliette Brunel Deschamps, Jean-Marie Chauvet, and Christian Hillaire discovered the Chauvet Cave. This group previously discovered other decorated caves in the region, including Les Deux-Ouvertures, Le Cade, the Grotte du Louoï, and the Caverne de Poitiers. The Chauvet Cave stretches more than 1,700 feet, larger than any previous cave painting discovery. Some of the images they found were of bears, panthers, cacti, handprints, horses, and lions. In addition to the painted images, engravings were found, including horses and mammoths. The images were, for the most part, natural and realistic looking and easily recognizable. Perspective was used as well. Some of the walls were prepared by scraping so the images would stand out better, and scraping was also used to add contours and highlighting. In Chauvet, like most other caves with prehistoric art, it is clear that not only was there more than one artist; different paintings were done at different times, often many years apart. 72 Celts The Lascaux Cave, located in south-central France, was discovered in 1940. Like the Chauvet Cave, it has many chambers. The first chamber is the “Hall of Bulls,” whose walls are covered with giant bulls, cows, stags, horses, and a figure thought to be a unicorn. This cave also has an image of a dead man, the reason of which is unknown. The Lascaux painters, like those in Chauvet, took advantage of the natural coloring in rocks, allowing colors like red, black, and yellow to be used. Radiocarbon analysis puts the paintings at Lascaux between 15,000 and 13,500 b.c.e. The Altamira Cave, located in northern Spain, was originally discovered in 1868, but it was not until 1879 that its images were noticed. It was not until 1901, when other caves were discovered, that Altamira was revisited. This time the importance of the discovery was acknowledged, as the cave contained some 100 figures, including bison, horses, deer, wild boar, and handprints. Why prehistoric peoples decided to create images in caves is a matter of conjecture. Different theories pose that the paintings were magical, intended to exercise control over what was depicted in the images. In addition, there is the thought that these images were simply representations. Other questions include dating and authenticity. The use of carbon dating, which measures the amount of carbon 14 remaining in organic materials, charcoal, bones, or cinders, leads to an approximation of age; however, there is a margin of error. Whatever the reason prehistoric man decided to put images on the walls of caves, it remains a fascinating aspect of human culture and nature. The majority of prehistoric cave paintings have been found in western Europe, but others have been found in Russia, Africa, Oceania, and possibly Brazil. See also Paleolithic age. Further reading: Bahn, Paul G. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Brown, G. Baldwin. The Art of the Cave Dweller: A Study of the Earliest Artistic Activities of Man. Edinburgh, Scotland: T.A. Constable, 1928; Chauvet, Jean- Marie, Eliette Brunel Deschamps, and Christian Hillaire. Dawn of Art: The Chauvet Cave—The Oldest Known Paintings in the World. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996; Luquet, G. H. The Art and Religion of Fossil Man. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1930; Moulin, Raoul- Jean. Prehistoric Painting. London: Heron Books, 1965. James E. Seelye, Jr. Celts The Celts were a tribal people of the Bronze and Iron Ages united by a common language, culture, and art. They lived throughout Europe. Most were eventually conquered by the Romans and became a part of the Roman Empire. Many unconquered areas have retained their separate language and culture for centuries. Ireland and parts of France, England, Wales, and Scotland can claim to be largely Celtic to this day. Language studies indicate that the Celts were an Indo-European group, first identified in Switzerland and Germany. The first written references to Celts come from the Greeks in 630–600 b.c.e., who describe the Keltoi as mining and trading silver from the Iberian Peninsula. The period of Celtic history from the fifth through the first century b.c.e. is called La Tène, after a village on Lake Neuchâtel in Switzerland, where ancient pilings leading into the lake prompted excavations in the mid- 19th century. Swords, shields, pins, razors, cauldrons, and even human remains were found buried in the silt of the lake, and many artifacts were decorated with graceful curving lines, whimsical faces, and plant motifs. The La Tène art style, since found in graves and monuments throughout the Celtic world, displayed the creativity and technical sophistication of the Celts. Before and during the La Tène period, Celts had migrated, tribe by tribe, throughout Europe. By the seventh century b.c.e. they moved south through the Alps and into the Po Valley of Italy, where the Boii, In- Ancient Celtic dolmen were slabs of rock built to protect the dead from the elements, as this one at Poulnabroun in Ireland shows. Ceylon 73 subres, and Senones tribes of Celts attacked Etruscan cities. Romans intervened as the Celts continued south but were defeated at the Battle of Allia in 390 b.c.e., after which the Senones, under the command of Brennus, sacked Rome and occupied the city for seven months. At that point Brennus accepted a bribe of 100 pounds of gold to leave, though Celtic forces harried the city for the next 50 years. Other Celtic tribes lived in the Russian steppes by the mid-fourth century b.c.e. and were well established on the Balkan borders of Alexander the Great’s empire. They conquered Thrace and set up a Celtic dynasty to rule there through most of the third century b.c.e. This century marked the height of Celtic power and dominion. The Celts had no empire, but independent tribes, some with populations in the hundreds of thousands, controlled much of Europe from the far west to the Black Sea. To the west the miners and artisans of Britain, Ireland, Spain, and Brittany traded in metals for centuries before being identified as Celtic. The tribal names that were eventually used to identify them during the La Tène period (for instance, the Iceni and Veneti) do not reveal whether the people were indigenous or conquered indigenous groups or mixed with them. It is possible that these populations of these places considered themselves Celtic throughout the first millennium b.c.e. Their enemies’ writings describe bloodthirsty savages whose cruelty knew no bounds. However, Celtic tribes could not have existed for centuries in their lands if they did nothing but wage war. Graves and offering pits with spectacular weaponry point to a war-like people, but archaeologists find evidence of family homesteads with marked fields with grazing land. Like most Iron Age people, the Celts worshipped and sacrificed to a myriad of gods, many local and unique. Their learned class— the Druids—were masters of astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, medicine, and history; they scorned writing and put their faith in training the memory. Celtic women had more options and independence than women in Greece or Rome; writers such as Diodorus, Siculus, and Tacitus describe women who fought as warriors or served as tribal rulers. Celtic warriors were renowned for being terrifying, functioning as independent fighters, and seeking to enhance personal reputations for heroics and glory. Many of these fighters would prove their skills by forgoing the lightest of Celtic armor and shields. Opposing armies would often be faced with the frightening psychological warfare of fierce, crazed, unclothed long-haired barbarians. They were also known for a frightening habit of collecting heads. Roman armies conquered the Celts or Gauls of northern Italy, warring from 225 b.c.e. through 190 b.c.e. The Dacians defeated the Celts of Bohemia in 60 b.c.e. Julius Caesar took western Iberia and then chronicled his conquests of the Celts or Gauls in The Gallic Wars. His siege of Alesia in the Auvergne region, capturing tribal king Vercingetorix, completed his victories in 52 b.c.e. In the reign of Claudius, in 43 c.e., much of Britain was conquered. The Celtic queen Boudicca led a major, but unsuccessful, revolt in 61 c.e. After earlier wars with Rome and Pontus, Celtic Galatia was absorbed into Cappadocia in 74 c.e. and a process of Romanization in Gaul occurred as in other Celtic lands. Ireland was not conquered and remained independent and Celtic for centuries. It later adopted Christianity and writing. The few Irish books that have survived provide an account of ancient myths, poems, legal codes, and cultural practices of the Celts. See also Carthage; Indo-Europeans; late barbarians; Roman historians. Further reading: Caesar, Julius. The Gallic War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979; Cunliffe, Barry. The Ancient Celts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997; Ellis, Peter Berresford. The Celts: A History. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2004; ———. The Druids. London: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994; James, Simon. The World of the Celts. London: Thames and Hudson, 1993; Wilcox, Peter. Rome’s Enemies (2:) Gallic and British Celts. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1985. Vickey Kalambakal Ceylon Ceylon was the name of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka before 1972. It is an island nation off the southeast coast of the Indian subcontinent, located in the tropics. Ceylon was also known in ancient times as Sinhale, Lanka, Lankadeepa, Simoundou, Taprobane, Serendib, and Selan. Some scholars and historians believe that Prince Vijaya migrated to Sri Lanka from Orissa, in northeastern India, sometime during the sixth century b.c.e. Some contest the date and believe the origins date back some 25,000 years more. They believe that the Indian princes, or veddas, ruled Sri Lanka much earlier. Ceylon’s origin is discussed in the Mahavamsa, which gives a complete history of the region. This manuscript describes the Sinhalese kingdom started by King Vijaya and his 74 Chandragupta II followers in the sixth century b.c.e. Vijaya’s minister, Anuradha, founded the settlement of Anuradhagamma, which later became known as Anuradhapura, and the center of government for Ceylon. Archaeological evidence contradicts this version by unearthing evidence of continuous established settlement in the region by peoples with knowledge of animal domestication, agriculture, and the use of metals from the 10th century b.c.e. onward. Buddhism arrived on the island in the third century b.c.e. with the coming of Arahath Mahinda Thero, a missionary of Indian emperor Ashoka. Buddhism thrived, and a sophisticated system of irrigation became the pillars of classical Sinhalese tribes from 200 b.c.e. until 1200 c.e. The origin of the Tamil presence in Ceylon is unclear. South Indian princes and kings invaded Sri Lanka on a number of occasions. Occasionally, those attacks resulted in Tamil control of the island for extended periods. Many Sinhala rulers were known for expelling the Tamil invasions and reestablishing authentic Sri Lankan rule. Cinnamon, which is native to Sri Lanka, was in use in ancient Egypt in about 1500 b.c.e., suggesting that there were trading links with the island. A large settlement appears to have been founded before 900 b.c.e. at the site of Anuradhapura and signs of an Iron Age culture have been found there. Ceylon was known to the Greeks and to the Romans, who called it Taprobane, probably after Tambapanni. In the first century b.c.e., the king sent an embassy to the Roman emperor Claudius. Anuradhapura remained Sri Lanka’s royal capital until the eighth century c.e., when Polonnaruwa replaced it. Tamil people from India began to arrive in Sri Lanka as early as the third century b.c.e., and there were repeated wars between the Sinhalese and Indian invaders. For much of the first millennium c.e., the island was controlled by various Tamil princes. The island was known to the Persians and Arabs as Serendib and features in the Sindbad stories in the famous 1001 Nights. See also Indo-Europeans; Indus civilization. Further reading: Amunugama, E. M. C. The History of Ancient Aryan Tribes in Sri Lanka. J.R. Jayewardene Cultural Center, 1994; DeSilva, Chandra Richard. Sri Lanka, A History. New York: Advent Books, 1987; DeSilva, K. M. A History of Sri Lanka. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981; Hettiaratchi, S. B. Social and Cultural History of Ancient Sri Lanka. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1988. Steve Napier


Chandragupta IIEdit

(r. c. 375–415 c.e.) Indian ruler Chandragupta II was the third ruler of the Gupta Empire of India. He reigned when the Gupta dynasty reached its zenith of power, and Indian classical culture was at its high watermark. He ruled all northern India except the northwest and central India down to the Deccan Plateau. The Gupta dynasty was founded in 320 c.e. when a north Indian prince named Chandragupta crowned himself Great King of Kings in the ancient Mauryan capital Pataliputra. The dynasty was consolidated by his son, Samudragupta, but reached its peak under the founder’s grandson, Chandragupta II. Whereas the Greek ambassador Megasthenes wrote an account of India under Emperor Chandragupta Maurya in the fourth century b.c.e., a Chinese Buddhist monk named Fa Xian (Fa-hsien) did so for fifth-century c.e. India. Fa Xian traveled around India for six years during Chandragupta II’s reign and recorded his impressions; his work, A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms, has survived. He found Pataliputra a rich city where hospitals provided care for the poor without charge. Buddhism still flourished, but Hinduism was regaining vitality. He also noted the presence of Untouchables on the edges of cities, carrying out menial tasks and having to sound gongs as they walked to warn others of their polluting presence. He admired the piety and prosperity of Indians and the leniency of Indian laws. A passage from his work said: “The king governs without decapitation or [other] corporal punishments. Criminals are simply fined, lightly or heavily, according to the circumstances [of each case] . . . Throughout the country the people do not kill any living things, nor eat onion or garlic . . . they do not keep pigs and fowls, and do not sell live cattle; in the market there are no butchers’ shops and no dealers in intoxicating drink . . . [In the towns] the inhabitants are rich and prosperous, and vie with one another in the practice of benevolence and righteousness.” The Gupta era was noted for its artistic refinement, the excellence of its bronze sculptures, and architecture, including magnificent temples and cave temples. Indian merchants and missionaries traveled widely by sea in Southeast Asia and by land via the Silk Road to Central Asia and China. Chandragupta II’s reign represented the apogee of the Gupta dynasty. Further reading: Legge, James, ed. and trans. A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms. Reprint, New York: Paragon Books, choregic poetry 75 1965; Majumdar, R. C. An Advanced History of India. London: Macmillan, 1958. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Chang’an Chang’an (Ch’ang-an), literally “Perpetual Peace,” was the largest city in the world of its time, boasting a population of over a million by the eighth century c.e. and covering nearly 32½ sq. miles. Chang’an actually refers to two cities. The first capital city, typically called “Han Chang’an” because of its construction during the Han dynasty, was built in 202 b.c.e. The famous emperor Han Wudi (Han Wu-ti) was known to have built gorgeous palaces there. The so-called Early, or Western, Han dynasty ended in 9 c.e., and China was ruled by a Chinese nobleman, Wang Mang, whose reign lasted until 25 c.e., when rebels killed him and burned down Chang’an. The first city was abandoned and the capital of the Later, or Eastern, Han dynasty was relocated to the ancient capital city Luoyang (Loyang). The capital city remained in Luoyang until the beginning of the Sui dynasty in 580 c.e. Emperor Wendi, the first of the Sui emperors, commissioned the building of a new Chang’an in 582–583 c.e., a declaration he made from the old Han Chang’an. The new Chang’an, much like its Han cousin, was built using a mix of geomancy, feng shui, matching topography to the hexagrams in the Yi Jing (I Ching), and comparing city design to the position of the stars. Therefore the city was split into two symmetrical halves with avenues running east to west and north to south forming wards, or city blocks. The palace city, primary residence of the emperors, was located at the northernmost point of the city, a location that represented the North Star. Buddhist monasteries were built in the southwest section of the city, the most dangerous location according to geomancy, because it was believed they helped ward off bad luck. Directly south of the palace compound was the imperial city, which housed the administrative offices of the government, and acted as a buffer between the son of heaven and the throngs of commoners occupying 88 percent of the space in Chang’an. The residence wards included two large market areas with approximately 220 bazaars hosted in each. City officials strictly regulated these centers of trade. In addition to a standardized system of weights and measures, all products underwent strict quality control. The cosmopolitan atmosphere of the marketplace attracted merchants, restaurant owners, and entertainers from Central Asian tribes and kingdoms such as the Uighurs and Sogdians. The Tang dynasty and its capital at Chang’an began its decline during the An Lushan Rebellion of the mid-eighth century c.e. Over the next century a succession of attacks from Tibetans, rebels, mutineers, and warlords forced much of the business and its residents out of the city. In 904, the last Tang emperor fled Chang’an for Luoyang, abandoning Chang’an to the weeds. It eventually decayed and collapsed, never again serving as the capital of China. See also Buddhism in China. Further reading: Twitchett, Denis. Cambridge History of China, Vol. Three: Sui and Tang China, 589–606. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979; Waugh, Daniel C. “Xi’an/ Chang’an.” Available online. URL: http://www.washington.edu (September 2005); Xiong, Victor Cunrui. Sui-Tang Chang’an. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2000. Michael Wert choregic poetry Perhaps the best known of the choregic poets, Pindar (522–443 b.c.e.) drew inspiration from the early history of Greece, the Dorians, Mycenae, and the Achaeans. Pindar was part of the great generation of Greeks who had turned back the Persian invasions of Darius I and Xerxes I and witnessed the great victories of Marathon against Darius (490 b.c.e.) and Salamis against Xerxes (480 b.c.e.). After such victories, poets like Pindar could look back with pride on the Mycenean Age, and the Homeric epics that celebrated Agamemnon, Ulysses, and the fall of Troy. Pindar produced some 15 books of poetry, of which unfortunately only his Epinikia (Victory odes) have survived. The papyrus texts in Egypt were most likely brought there after its conquest by the Greek general Ptolemy II, who took Egypt after the wars of succession that followed the death in Babylon of Alexander the Great in 323 b.c.e. The Epinikia were written largely to celebrate the athletic competitions that formed such a great part of Greek culture, much like the events found at the Olympic Games. The very term marathon came from the runner who carried the news of the great victory of Marathon back to Athens, after which he collapsed and died from exhaustion. 76 Choson Under the choregic system, Pindar’s greatest poetic rivals were Simonides and Bacchylides. The rivalries were not just for glory but because rulers like Hiero I (478–467 b.c.e.) and Theron were wealthy patrons, who amply rewarded the poets who lauded their athletic prowess. Simonides of Ceos (c. 556–469 b.c.e.), for example, found a patron in Hipparchus of Athens. After the assassination of Hipparchus in 514 b.c.e., he fled to Thessaly where the aristocratic Scopadae and Aleuadar families befriended him. After Marathon, Simonides returned to Athens but only stayed briefly. He then journeyed to Sicily at the invitation of Hiero, where he lived until his death. Simonides is best remembered for his poetry, and even early in his career wrote paens to the sun god of the Greeks, Apollo. He was an intimate of Themistocles, the architect of the great naval victory at Salamis. Themistocles could be considered the father of ancient Greek naval power. His Greek patriotism was reflected in his verse. Simonides’ philosophy was earthy and practical, as one might expect from one who had seen the best and worst of men in war. One of Simonides’ best-known surviving works is “The Lamentation of Danae,” in which “Danae and her infant son were confined by order of her father Acrisius in a chest and set adrift on the sea. The chest floated towards the island of Seriphus, where both were rescued by Dictys, a fisherman, and carried to Polydectes, king of the country, who received and protected them.” Danae’s infant son Perseus would grow up to slay the monster gorgon Medusa, who had snakes for hair and whose gaze could turn a man into stone. Bacchylides, interestingly enough, was the nephew of Simonides: His mother was the sister of the poet. Compared to Simonides and Pindar, biographical data on Bacchylides is sparse. Among his odes the earliest can be approximately dated to 481 or 479 b.c.e.; the latest date is fixed to 452 b.c.e. Like Pindar and Simonides, he went to the court of the ruler of Syracuse, Hiero. Indeed, it appears that the rivalry between Bacchylides, Pindar, and Simonides was acute at the Syracusan court. Out of the work created by Bacchylides, some six dithyrambs, poems based on mythological themes, and 14 epinikia are known to have survived. Considering that Hiero’s victories took place in the Olympic Games, the poetry of Pindar and Bacchylides became known throughout the oecumene, the Greekspeaking world. Hiero’s victories involved horseracing, showing the importance of the horse in Greek culture and warfare. Bacchylides wrote two works on the life of Theseus, who according to Greek mythology killed the Minotaur, the half-man, half-bull monster who lived within the labyrinth on the island of Crete. See also Greek mythology and pantheon; libraries, ancient; lyric poetry. Further reading: Eggenberger, David. An Encyclopedia of Battles. Mineoloa, NY: Dover, 1985; Hanson, Victor Davis. Wars of the Ancient Greeks. London: Cassell, 1999; Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2000. John F. Murphy, Jr. Choson The kingdoms of ancient Choson developed in Korea from the Bronze Age when tribal groups started to dominate the land between the Liao River in southern Manchuria, and the Taedong River in northern Korea. The legendary founder of the dynasty was Tan’gun, hailed by Koreans in modern-day North Korea and South Korea as the founder of their nations. Tan’gun is claimed as an ancestor for the kingdom of ancient Choson; the term ancient is used to differentiate it from the Yi dynasty, which ruled 1398–1910 c.e. and used the name Choson for Korea. Ancient Choson from the fourth century b.c.e. was a series of tribal leagues that controlled the area from southern Manchuria to the Taedong River. It was powerful for more than 100 years at a time when China was preoccupied with what has become known as the Warring States period. A major innovation in ancient Choson that enabled the kings to maintain their independence was the use of iron. Prior to this most warriors in the region had used bronze. It is believed that the northern Chinese may have introduced iron when they were escaping the attacks of the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) or Huns. One of these refugees was a former Chinese general called Wei Man (Wiman)who had served in the Chinese state of Yan (Yen). Wei Man was the descendant of important landowners in China during the Zhou (Chou) dynasty and had been welcomed in Choson, as he and his followers were experienced soldiers. They were given land in the north of Choson where they offered to act as frontier guards. Wei Man was given a jade insignia denoting his importance as a Korean general. As more Chinese refugees came to live on his lands, his number of potential supporters increased, and his power grew. Very soon Wei Man realized that the kingdom was Christian Dualism 77 weak, and he had many supporters among the Chinese refugees who had already arrived in Choson and were either living in his lands or elsewhere in the kingdom. He also managed to get support from some local tribes who felt that they had not been well treated by the kings of Choson. In 190 b.c.e. Wei Man wrote to the rulers of Choson saying that the Chinese had invaded from several sides, and he had to guard the king. He and his supporters then moved quickly on the Choson capital of Pyongyang on the pretext of protecting the royal court against a Chinese invasion, which everybody had feared for several hundred years. Wei Man then took over the capital and the existing king, Chun, and went further south, establishing himself as King Han, which has no connection to the dynasty in China of the same name. Wei Man, who claimed descent from the Chinese sage Qizi (Chi Tzu), used his contacts in China to ensure that the Chinese recognized him as a king, and he reciprocated by acknowledging the emperors of China. He established cordial relations with the governor of Liaodong (Liao-tung), the neighboring Chinese province. However, the tribute that Wei Man had promised to the Chinese emperor was never sent. Wei Man and his descendants had initially felt that they were well entrenched, but when the civil war ended in China and the Han dynasty came to power, they faced several Chinese invasions. Diplomatic problems first arose when some Chinese rebels who had been involved in the Seven Princes’ Rising in 154 b.c.e. fled to Korea. The Chinese were also sending out emissaries to some of the tribes who lived in northern Choson. The actual dispute leading to the invasion was over tribute. A Chinese delegate visited Yu Ku (or Ugo), the grandson of Wei Man, to ask why no tribute had been paid. Furthermore, Yu Ku had tried to stop tribes that he felt were part of his kingdom from acknowledging their overlordship by the Han. This was particularly true of the tribes on lands in central and southern Korea. Yu Ku realized the situation was tricky, but having built up a relatively strong army, he prevaricated and eventually the envoy returned to China. On the return trip the envoy allowed his charioteer to kill a Korean prince who had been sent to escort him to the border. This envoy claimed that he had killed a Korean general and was applauded by the Chinese court that decorated him with the title “Protector of the Eastern Tribes of Liao Tung.” The Koreans protested, but a Chinese attack was inevitable and came in 109 b.c.e. when Emperor Wu of China sent his soldiers into Choson. Some 50,000 Chinese soldiers were dispatched by ship from Shandong (Shantung), with additional troops attacking by land. The two armies were able to invade Korea, but their attacks were not coordinated, and they were unable to unite. As a result they were not able to defeat the Koreans in battle—the Koreans remained in their fortifications. With the bitter winter imminent, the Chinese sent an envoy to Yu Ku who replied that he would accept the emperor of China as his overlord but would not send his son as a messenger in case he suffered the fate of the prince killed by the previous envoy. The only initial casualty of these negotiations was the Chinese envoy who was executed when he returned empty-handed. In 189 b.c.e. the Chinese attacked the Koreans again, and this time they succeeded in seizing the kingdom and established four Chinese commanderies called Nangnang (Lolang in Chinese, Rakuro in Japanese), Chinbon, Imdun, and Hyont’o. The latter three soon lapsed into Korean areas, with the Chinese only holding on to Nangnang. There a Confucian school was established, and several historical texts were written that described some of the early events in Korean history. The Confucian Classics remain an important part of Korean culture. Over the next 400 years the Koguryo tribes of northern Korea started agitating against Chinese rule. As they rose in power, they amassed a large army and in 313 c.e. ejected the Chinese from Nangnang. In 342 c.e. the Koguryo king, Kogugwon, established his capital at Hwando just north of the Yalu River. Facing threats from China, it was soon moved to Pyongyang. There the Koguryo kingdom imported many ideas from China including Buddhism, which is seen in many of the archaeological remains discovered in recent years. See also Kija; Three Kingdoms, Korea. Further reading: Gardiner, K. J. H. The Early History of Korea. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1969; “Reflections on Studies in Ancient Korean History— Colloquium of Five Historians.” Korea Journal (v.27/12, 1987); Suk, Kim Yong. The Tomb of King Tangun. Pyongyang, North Korea: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1995. Justin Corfield Christian Dualism (Gnosticism) Gnosticism arose around the same time and place as Christianity. Some Gnostics were Christian, some Jewish, and some pagan. Gnostics believed that gnosis (Greek: “knowledge”), not faith, brought salvation. 78 Christian Dualism Not education or experience, but revelation gave gnosis. This article will deal with the concept, the origins, and the varieties of Gnosticism, especially as it was expressed in Valentinianism, Marcionism, Manichaeanism, Mandaeism and at Nag Hammadi. Many other forms of Gnosticism circulated in ancient religious circles too numerous to relate here, including Sethian- Barbeloites, Ophites, Naassenes, and Hermetics. Concept and Origins of Gnosticism The content of gnosis was that our universe arose because of a problem in a preexisting state. One version of this problem, from Iranian religion, was the meeting of two eternal antithetical realms, one of spirit, the other of matter, resulting in our universe. The more common version was that the supreme God generated lesser gods, one or more of whom created the material universe, imprisoning divinity in a material body. Understanding of the content of gnosis brings about salvation, which is the escape of the divine spark from its material prison to its divine home. Regarding the body as evil had contradictory ethical consequences. Some Gnostics tried to deny the desires of the body by avoiding sex, meat, and alcohol. Because they considered what was done with the body unimportant, others perhaps enjoyed all three, sometimes practicing contraception to prevent trapping spirit in new bodies. There is debate about whether Gnosticism came from Iran or from Hellenism, but it probably grew from Judaism, perhaps in response to oppression by Gentiles. The fathers of the church traced Gnosticism to Simon Magus, converted in Samaria in Acts 8. The second century c.e. saw a proliferation of Gnosticism. Basilides, a Jewish Christian in Alexandria around 140, was called a disciple of a disciple of Simon, although Basilides claimed to be taught by the apostle Matthias or an interpreter of Peter. Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200) tells one version of Basilides’ teaching: The supreme Father emanated five beings, from the lowest of which 365 heavens descended. The angels in the lowest created the world, with divine spirit in human bodies. The Jewish god, one of these angels, tried to make his people rule the world, but the other angels stopped him. The Father sent his Son, seemingly crucified, to free the spirit. The belief that Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth only seemed to suffer and die as a human is called “docetism.” Hippolytus (c. 160–235) relates another version of Basilides’ teaching: The “nonexistent” God generated a “Seed” containing three principles called “Sonships,” of which two flew to God, but the third stayed in the Seed. Two rulers emerged from the Seed. One created the world above the Moon. A second, the Jewish god, created the world below the Moon. Jesus of Nazareth separated the mixed parts of creation. When the third Sonship has been restored to the spiritual world, God will subject the lower creation to ignorance, making it content in its inferiority. Valentinianism The Alexandrian Valentinus was perhaps nominated for bishop of Rome around 143 but repudiated as a heretic. Valentinians believed in a divine world, the Pleroma, of at least 30 aeons. Aeon means a “world,” an “age,” and a “god.” The greatest was Abyss, who with his wife, Thought, produced the 14 remaining aeon couples. The lowest, Sophia (Greek: “wisdom”), desired to “know” Abyss, which would have destroyed her. Sophia was protected from her desire but bore by herself a monster, Achamoth (Hebrew: “wisdom”), which was thrown out of the Pleroma. Sophia’s distress at the birth of Achamoth became matter, her repentance of her desire to know Abyss became the soul (psyche), and the product of Achamoth’s “purification” by Jesus, a perfect being produced by all the aeons, became the spirit. Achamoth produced from psychic substance the Demiurge, who created the universe and a man of matter into whom he breathed a soul. Achamoth then secretly planted her spirit in some humans. Valentinians distinguished three types of people, the material, certain to perish; the “psychic,” to perish or be saved by their choices; and the spiritual, certain to be saved. Three Christs—spiritual, psychic, and bodily—were also hypothesized. Marcionism Marcion, the ship-owning son of a bishop near the Black Sea, came to Rome and generously funded the church but was expelled in 144. Like Gnostics, Marcion traced matter to an inferior god, denied a real body to Jesus, and prohibited sex, wine, and meat to his followers. However, Marcion is usually not considered Gnostic. Humans were purely creatures of the inferior god and, like their creator, had no essential relation to the superior God. This god purely from compassion sent his son Jesus, dying to save the Jewish god’s creatures. Denying salvation by knowledge, Marcion preached salvation by faith in Jesus. Marcion wrote Antitheses, contrasting Old and New Testaments, and edited his own bible, partly moChristian Dualism 79 tivating the formation of the Catholic Bible. Marcion omitted the Old Testament, and of the New Testament included only the gospel of Luke and 10 epistles of Paul, removing references to the Old Testament, the creator, and Jesus’ birth. Most Gnostics were loosely organized, but Marcion founded a well-organized church that may have persisted until the 10th century. ManichaeANism Mani was born in 216 in Mesopotamia. His parents were Elkesaites, Jewish-Christian Gnostics. Mani also seemingly was influenced by another Gnostic sect called Mandaeism. Inspired by a vision of his “twin,” the Holy Spirit, Mani left the Elkesaites. Mani’s teaching briefly enjoyed the favor of Persian kings; however, Bahram I favored Zoroastrianism, resulting in Mani’s imprisonment and death in 276. Mani’s followers extended from Spain to China, where they perhaps survived until the 17th century. Augustine of Hippo was deeply affected by Manichaeanism. In the West persecution destroyed Manichaeanism by the early Middle Ages. So-called Manichaeanism in later medieval Europe was not authentic. The Paulicians arose in Armenia around 650 from generally Gnostic origins rather than as a specifically Manichaean refugee group. The Bogomils appeared in 10th-century Bulgaria after Paulicians were exiled in 872 in Macedonia. By the 11th century Bogomilian ideas spread to Italy and France, where the Cathars, suppressed in the Albigensian Crusade of the 13th century, espoused them. Mani’s followers presented him as the present incarnation of Zoroaster’s son, of Maitreya (the future Buddha), as well as of the Holy Spirit. Mani claimed his own religion included all previous religions; and the Hebrew patriarchs, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, and Paul preceded him as revealers of gnosis. Like Valentinianism, Manichaeanism has three forms of Jesus, the Jesus Splendor, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus patibilis (“suffering Jesus”), who symbolized the suffering particles of light throughout creation. Thus, whether Manichaeanism generally is Christian is questionable because it adapted itself to whatever religious environment it entered. Like Marcion and Mandaeans, Mani did not derive evil from the supreme God but taught that the worlds of light and darkness had existed separately from eternity. In response to the attack of darkness, God created Wisdom, who bore the first Man. In battle with darkness, Man left his soul in the underworld. Then God sent Living Spirit, who, to free Man’s soul, created the universe, which is a mix of particles of Man’s soul and matter from the world of darkness. The particles climb the Milky Way to the Moon, whose waxing is its filling with particles, which wait until it is full, and its waning the particles’ journey to the Sun. From the Sun the particles go to the “new aeon,” where they await the end of time, when they will join the world of light. To bind the light, evil rulers, having swallowed particles, created Adam and Eve. God sent the Jesus Splendor to give Adam gnosis. Human souls with gnosis escape from their bodies upon death, but ignorant souls enter new bodies. Sufficient light having been freed, Jesus will judge the world, which will burn to purify the remaining light. Matter will then be imprisoned forever. Mani’s ethic intended to protect and liberate the imprisoned light. The Manichaean church consisted of the “chosen,” who abstained from meat, wine, sex, and many other things, and “hearers,” who did not. Manichaean rites included prayers, reading, music, fasting, and feasts. Central was the “table” of the chosen, the daily meal of plants containing much light, such as melons, wheat bread, and juice or water. The chosen liberated the light within these plants by consuming them. Unlike other Gnostics and like Marcion, Mani founded a well-organized church, perhaps accounting for Manichaeanism’s survival after the demise of almost every other Gnostic system. Nag Hammadi and Mandaeism Gnosticism was known mostly through its enemies, the fathers of the church, until 1945, when peasants near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, found 13 codices containing 46 tractates. Some are previously known works, others are complete works previously known only in fragments or only by name, and many were previously unknown. Some are not Gnostic, such as Plato’s Republic and the Acts of Peter and the Twelve, and perhaps Thomas- Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas may as accurately record Jesus’ words as the canonical Gospels. The Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip are Valentinian, the Apocryphon of John is Sethian, and others are Hermetic. The Nag Hammadi writings revolutionized Gnostic studies. Medieval persecution largely suppressed Gnosticism, and the only Gnostic sect existing today is Mandaeism, mostly in Iraq. Like Marcionism and Manichaeanism, Mandaeism teaches that the worlds of light and darkness existed independently from eternity. Unlike them, Mandaeism prescribes child bearing and meat eating. See also Bible translations; Christianity, early; heresies; Judaism, early (heterodoxies). 80 Christianity, early Further reading: Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. 3rd ed. Boston: Beacon, 2001; Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage, 1979; Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. Trans. and ed. by Robert McL. Wilson, P. W. Coxon, K. H. Kuhn. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1984. Grant R. Shafer Christianity, early Christianity grew out of Second Temple Judaism and inherited its most important legacy, the Jewish scripture. It also inherited much of the Jewish interpretive traditions, such as the concepts of monotheism, covenant, election, and revelation, that had shaped the interpretation of these scriptures. The New Testament (NT) writers reinterpreted these traditions, as well as the scriptures, to confirm and to bolster the conviction that Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth, a person of the peasant class in the Greco-Roman world, was the promised Messiah, the Son of God, who established the new covenant by his blood, inaugurated the new age of eternal life, and gave all humans—male, female, old, young, slave, free, Jews, and Gentiles—the right to receive salvation by faith. A very able articulator of these new views was the apostle Paul of Tarsus, a Diaspora Jew and a former persecutor of the church. After a dramatic encounter with the risen Jesus, he became convinced that the death and the resurrection of Jesus fulfilled all the promises of the Jewish scriptures. Armed with this conviction, Paul redefined Jewish monotheism in new and surprising ways. If God had chosen to reveal himself fully in the death of Jesus, Paul argued, God, like Jesus, must be a friend of sinners. “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us”(Rom. 5:8; Revised Standard Version). No Jewish literature prior to Paul depicts God’s love toward humans in these radical terms. God was customarily viewed in Judaism as a judge who punished sinners. Judaism did not teach that God loved sinners. Paul’s teaching that the dying figure of Jesus on the cross was the most complete revelation of God’s love toward sinful humans was simply revolutionary. This radical vision of God is precisely what early Christianity came to embrace as its central conviction, and it is this conviction that caused Christianity to take root and prosper in the ancient world. Christianity’s explosive growth, however, was due to more than just doctrines, scriptural interpretations, or its message, brilliant as they were. There were other factors aiding its growth. Perhaps the most important of these was Christianity’s aggressive missionary zeal. In fact, Christianity was the most missionary-minded religion of antiquity. Neither Judaism nor Hellenistic philosophical schools engaged in missionary activities to the degree of Christianity. All the apostles were missionaries who made evangelistic forays into the far reaches of the Roman Empire. Of early Christianity’s missionaries, the most successful was Paul. He founded churches throughout Asia Minor (Turkey) and Greece. The second factor aiding Christianity’s growth was that Christianity was an urban religion. This was a surprising development because Christianity began as a small Jewish reform movement in Galilee led by one of its peasants. Within 50 years of the death of its founder, this humble rural religious movement took root in every major urban center of the empire. Antioch on the Orontes, Alexandria, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Rome all became the major centers of Christianity’s growth and eventual domination. Ironically, the rural territories of the Roman Empire were the last to be converted to Christianity. The urban settings of the empire offered, among others, two conditions that made Christianity attractive: openness to new ideas and ethnic diversity. The city people were open minded, and Christianity had plenty of novel ideas to offer about God, humanity, and the world. But unlike Hellenistic philosophers, Christian preachers offered a relatively simple and practical message that appealed to many different classes of people, including the illiterate. Celsus, a second- century opponent of Christianity, ridiculed Christianity for exploiting the ignorant and appealing to the disadvantaged. More important was the ethnic diversity of the Roman cities. The cities of the empire were cosmopolitan. People came from all parts of the empire to live and work in the cities, creating a network of relations in which merchants, soldiers, and slaves frequently intermingled with one another. Christianity’s key attraction was that no particular ethnic ties bound it. It preached its message to persons of any class and ethnic origin who were willing to listen. Unlike many pagan religions, Christianity was not tied to the customs of the land and did not discriminate against anyone. For example, Mithraism, a rival religion to Christianity, did not accept women into its fellowship. Early Christianity welcomed all who chose to accept Jesus Christianity, early 81 as Lord. Early Christian preachers saw the cosmopolitan cities of the empire as offering exceptional opportunities to spread the gospel “to every nation and tribe and language and people” (Rev 14:7). Christianity had an unexplainable power to appeal to displaced people who were experiencing insecurity and distress in the major cities of the empire. Christianity quickly established itself in North Africa in Alexandria and Carthage, where the great apologists Tertullian (c. 185 c.e.), Origen (c. 185– 254 c.e.), and Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 c.e.) worked, all of whom played a critical role in shaping the church’s Trinitarian doctrine. The city of Rome became home to Clement (c. 96 c.e.), Justin Martyr (150 c.e.), and Pope Callistus (217–222 c.e.). The churches in these Italian and North African cities became centers from which Christianity spread and took root in the Western Roman Empire. Lyon of Gaul (France) became home to Bishop Irenaeus (160–220 c.e.), one of the greatest apologists of early Christianity, whose writings provided a rich source of information about Christian Dualism before the Nag Hammadi codices were discovered. Christianity also took root in the cities of the East. The powerful Christian centers Ephesus, Smyrna, and Laodicea were all important cities of Asia Minor. The Antioch of Syria on the Orontes became an ancient center of Syrian Christianity going back to the very beginning of Christianity. Antioch gave birth to the great bishop Ignatius (c. 98–117 c.e.), whose letters are a valuable source of information about Christianity in Greece and Asia at the end of the era of the Twelve Apostles. The third factor aiding Christianity’s growth was its high ethical tone and moral purpose. The Roman moral sensibilities were somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, Rome extolled morality and law. On the other hand, it encouraged debauchery and savage entertainments, such as gladiator fights and the circus. In the midst of the moral confusion Christianity became a clarion call of protest, particularly on behalf of women and lower-class people. Also, in contrast to the highbrow Roman intelligentsia, Christians actually tried to live a moral life rather than simply pass judgment on society. Many ordinary believers lived an exemplary moral life. This became perhaps most evident in the martyrdom of the early Christians. If apostasy represents dissatisfied customers, martyrdom represents brand loyalty. The early Christian martyrs showcased their unflinching loyalty to the Christian ideals of nonviolence and moral purity before the eyes of the crowds that had come looking for a violent entertainment. Finally, the most important factor aiding Christianity’s growth was its phenomenal efficiency. Owing mostly to Roman persecutions, the church did not possess significant assets or real estate, so no extensive and centralized administrative oversight was necessary. Also it did not take many to start a church. It took only a handful of the disciples of Jesus to form the initial bands of believers in Palestine. It took only one person, Paul, to found churches throughout Asia Minor and Greece. In cities such as Rome and Alexandria it did not even take an apostle to plant Christianity. Maintaining the newly planted churches also required little manpower. The chief reason was the simplicity of the liturgy. Many of the original congregations were “house churches” that met in private homes and were of no more than 30 or 40 individuals each. Even in the second and third centuries, when many churches grew in size, house church continued to be the way new churches got started. In these house churches the worship consisted basically of the Eucharist, singing of hymns, reading of scripture, mutual sharing of insights, and a fellowship (agape) meal. Rarely did a virtuoso preacher stand in front with a polished sermon, and there were no elaborate initiation rites, as in the mystery religions. Nor was there a painful rite, like Jewish circumcision. The converts were simply baptized by water in a baptistery or a shallow river. The main “service” that Christianity provided to its adherents was koinonia, or “spirit-filled fellowship.” There were deacons, presbyters, bishops, synods, and even councils that looked after the growing church. The presbyters oversaw communities, and the deacons looked after the affairs of the local churches. The most important ecclesiastical office was that of the bishop, who oversaw large territories in the empire. The bishops of major cities were rather powerful. The bishops of Rome in particular, later called the pope, exercised great power, both spiritually and politically. From the middle of the first century c.e. until Constantine the Great converted to Christianity and made it Rome’s official religion in 322, Christianity proliferated more or less spontaneously, where it was least controlled. Christianity became the spawning ground of exotic ideas, later termed heresies. Gnosticism, Monarchialism, Montanism, and Manichaeanism are some of the names given to these exotic ideas. For a religion growing without close supervision in urban centers of the Roman Empire, mostly among Gentile converts, this was to be expected. Most of the Gentile converts to Christianity did not know the Jewish traditions that stood behind much of the NT. Their intellectual context was 82 Chrysostom, John Hellenistic philosophy whose general focus was nature. Consequently, the debates that flared up between the fathers of the church and their opponents were about the nature of things: the nature of divine revelation, the nature of God, the nature of Christ, the nature of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Trinity, the nature of the church, the nature of man, and the nature of redemption— in short the nature of Christianity. By far the most important theological controversy in early Christianity was about the nature of Christ. The NT writers, most of whom were Jews, had been only minimally concerned with the nature of Christ. Their focus was history, the work of Jesus—that he was born, died for our sins, was buried and raised on the third day, and ascended to sit at the right hand of God to reign and to intercede for the saints before God. Even the writings of the apostolic fathers, such as the Didache, the Letters of Ignatius, 1 Clement, Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, which were composed at the turn of the first century c.e., continued to focus mostly on the work of Christ and its saving effect on humans. Even their discussions about the preexistence of Christ were about his work in creation and Israel’s history. From the second to third centuries, however, Christian apologists shifted their attention to defining the nature of the relationship between Christ and God—whether Christ had the same nature as that of God the Father. The “apologists,” such as Justin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, vigorously fought for a particular conception of the faith and argued for the unity of Christ and God: Christ was uncreated and of one substance with God the Father, and Christ was fully divine and fully human. This notion of divine unity became early Christianity’s orthodox Christology. The main strategy that the apologists used was to argue that they had the true apostolic tradition and that the scriptures must be read in light of this tradition. Irenaeus accused his opponents of developing their doctrines based on obscure scriptural passages and by appealing to forgeries, like the Gospel of Judas, rather than accepting the authentic apostolic tradition. The monumental triumph of the fathers of the church’s orthodoxy came in 325 when the Council of Nicaea declared that Christ is “very God of very God.” It was a temporary victory, however. The reality was that at the time of the Nicene Creed, there was still no widespread consensus on the nature of Christ in early Christianity, and by the end of the fourth century a new conception of Christ had taken hold in mainstream Christianity, Arianism. See also Greek Church; Hellenization; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Latin Church; martyrologies; messianism; mystery cults; persecutions of the church. Further reading: Bainton, Roland H. Christendom: A Short History of Christianity and Its Impact on Western Civilization. New York: Harper and Row, 1966; Kelly, John N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper and Row, 1978; Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, the Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971; Richardson, Cyril C. Early Christian Fathers. New York: Macmillan, 1970; Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. P. Richard Choi Chrysostom, John (c. 347–407 c.e.) church leader and theologian John Chrysostom was bishop of Constantinople and perhaps the greatest preacher in the early church, earning him the title chrysostomos (Greek: “goldenmouthed”). John was born to Christian parents of the educated upper class in Antioch in Syria and as a young man, studied rhetoric under the distinguished philosopher of Neoplatonism, Libanius. Although his education and exceptional gifts prepared him for a career in law or the imperial service, John chose instead to enter the clergy. He was baptized by Bishop Melitius of Antioch around 367 c.e., became a lector (a minor church official who read scripture in the liturgy or public worship), and devoted himself to the study of scripture and theology under Diodore of Tarsus, the leader of the Antiochene school. Before advancing further in his ecclesiastical career, John withdrew from Antioch in order to pursue the ascetic life between 372 and 378. Under a strict ascetic regimen, however, John’s health deteriorated, forcing him to return to the city. In 381 John was ordained deacon, and in 386, presbyter, or priest. The next decade was the most productive in his life and marked the beginning of his extraordinary career as a preacher and writer. The vast majority of John’s work during these years consisted of sermons addressed to the people of Antioch. It was the rhetorical skill, spiritual depth, and practical applicability of his sermons that earned John the distinguished title chrysostom. In contrast to many early Christian interpreters of scripture, who favored allegorical reading, John epitomized the Antiochene Cicero 83 school’s emphasis on the literal sense. At the same time, however, his preaching aimed primarily to draw out the spiritual and moral implications of the biblical text and apply them to the lives of his hearers. Against his wishes John was made bishop, or patriarch, of Constantinople in 398. He quickly became enmeshed in imperial and ecclesiastical politics, areas in which he possessed significantly less skill than in preaching. Through a combination of his asceticism, uncompromising zeal for moral reform, and tactless disdain for the opulence of the court, John made himself the enemy of several very prominent people, including the empress Eudoxia and Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria. In a synod held in a suburb of Chalcedon in 403, Theophilus and a number of other Egyptian bishops condemned John on 29 concocted charges, including uttering defamatory and treasonable words against the empress. John was eventually deposed and exiled near Antioch before being banished to Comana, an isolated village of Pontus on the Black Sea. In spite of support from the people of Constantinople, Pope Innocent I, and the entire Western Latin Church, John lived out his final days in exile. He died at Comana on September 14, 407, and his body was removed to Constantinople 30 years later. In the Western church his feast day is celebrated on September 13, and in the Eastern Church on November 13. See also Cappadocians; Christianity, early; Greek Church; Greek oratory and rhetoric; monasticism; Second Sophistic. Further reading: Kelly, J. N. D. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995; Mayer, Wendy, and Paul Allen. John Chrysostom. London: Routledge, 2000. Franklin T. Harkins Cicero (106–43 b.c.e.) orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero was a famous Roman orator, writer, and political leader. He was a contemporary of Sulla, Pompey, and Julius Caesar. He was born in Arpinum in the year 106 b.c.e. and died in 43 b.c.e. He followed the custom of going to Rome for his formal education, studying rhetoric, philosophy, and law. After Rome he also studied rhetoric and philosophy with the Greeks at Athens and Rhodes. The Romans considered him a great orator, and his writing style had a strong influence on writing in the Western world. Politically and philosophically, his stand against autocratic rule and for a republican style of government has also been influential. Cicero’s family was well to do and of the landed gentry but still not of the highest social class. Nevertheless, Cicero’s father made sure that Cicero and his brother, Quintus, had the best teachers in Rome. At age 16, he studied law under Mucius Scaevolia, one of Rome’s best lawyers. During the Social War (91–88 b.c.e.), the war between the Romans and other Italian cities over the right to citizenship, Cicero served as a soldier for a short time under Consul Pompeius Strabo. After this he began his career as a lawyer. In 82 b.c.e. he demonstrated his political courage by defending Sextus Roscius, an enemy of the dictator Sulla. He won the case and went to Greece to continue his education, returning to Rome in 77 b.c.e. Intelligent and ambitious, he followed the Roman road map to success, working his way up through various government jobs. The government first appointed him as a quaestor (financial administrator) in Sicily in 76 b.c.e. This was also the year that he married his first wife, Terentia, who gave him property and eventually an unhappy marriage. He further made his name in the legal profession in 70 b.c.e. when he successfully prosecuted Gaius Verres, the former governor of Sicily, for corruption. In the year 63 b.c.e. Cicero became a consul, a position that gave him the highest of Roman class distinctions: a member of the nobility. But his time in office was a time of crisis for the Republic. The bulk of the Roman army was with Pompey in the east. In the meantime, Catiline, who had run for the position of consul and lost, had put an army together with the hopes of taking over the government. Cicero discovered the plot and had many of the conspirators arrested. The Senate decided to put some of the conspirators to death without a trial. They argued that it was a time of martial law and the government was in grave danger. Cicero went along with this and was declared Pater Patriae—Father of His Country. But not everyone was happy with the decision. After testifying in a case against a patrician named Clodius, Cicero found his citizenship—and possibly his life—in danger. In revenge for the testimony Clodius had a law passed that stated that anyone involved with putting to death a citizen without trial should be exiled or executed. Cicero fled the country and could not safely return until the next year (57 b.c.e.). In the 84 classical art and architecture, Greek meantime, Roman officials destroyed his house and confiscated his property. Cicero, a firm believer in republican principles, did not like the trend in Roman politics toward dictatorship. Unfortunately, these were the years of the First Triumvirate of Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus. Then Crassus was killed in battle, and the country was ripe for civil war. Eventually, Caesar and Pompey clashed militarily, and Pompey was killed. Caesar proclaimed himself perpetual dictator in February 44 b.c.e. Then, on the Ides of March, a group of conspirators representing those for the return of the Republic assassinated Caesar. Cicero was not a member of the conspiracy. It was the hope of all of the conspirators, as well as Cicero, that with the death of Caesar, the Roman Empire would return to a republican style government. It did not. Instead, Mark Antony took power, increasing his political and military power. Brutus left the country; Cicero started to leave, but Brutus convinced him he should remain and use his powers to try to persuade the populace that Antony was not their answer. In response, Cicero then wrote his famous Philippics, a series of speeches attacking Antony. Again, the result was not the desired one. In a complicated zigzag of power shifts, Octavian, Caesar’s nephew, returned to Rome and pledged his loyalty to the republican cause. At first, he was successful in his military challenge to Antony, then in a complete reversal, Octavian struck a deal with Antony and Lepidus to create the Second Triumvirate. Part of the deal included a proscription—a death list of people who the new government felt were a threat. Cicero was on the list and was hunted and killed. His head and hands were cut off and placed in Rome as a warning to those who would write and speak against those in power. Cicero’s life and examples are evident in his writings. His letters are superb examples of clear writing as well as a prime source of historical data. In terms of influence, his thoughts have affected many, including John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. See also Antonine emperors; Caesar, Julius; Marius and Sulla; Rome: government. Further reading: Cicero, M. T., et al. Cicero: Select Orations. New York: D. McKay, 1952; Grant, Michael. Cicero: Selected Works. New York: Penguin, 1984; Plutarch. Parallel Lives, Volume 7. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. William P. Toth classical art and architecture, Greek The Greek Classical Period began with a war. In 499 b.c.e. the Ionian cities along the coast of Asia Minor revolted against the Persians under whose rule they had lived. In retaliation the Persians, led by Darius I, crushed the rebel cities and moved against Athens and Sparta, which took part in the revolt. When the Persians moved onto the mainland in 490 b.c.e., the Athenians defeated them at the Battle of Marathon, a few miles from Athens. Darius died (486 b.c.e.) and his son Xerxes I, who succeeded him, moved against Athens with an army of 200,000 soldiers, 1,200 warships, and 3,000 smaller craft, and burned the city down. As Xerxes retreated, the Athenians, aided by the Spartans, followed the Persians to Plataea, and there they defeated the Persians again. In 477 b.c.e. the Ionian and Aegean coastal cities formed the Delian League with Athens to unite themselves against this enemy. In 454 b.c.e. the military defense treasury was moved from Delos to Athens, and the annual payments collected from each member was spent on rebuilding the city. Under the leadership of Pericles, Athens became the world’s cultural center. THE PARTHENON The destruction of Athens by the Persians meant that the temples and statues of the Acropolis, the sacred hill in the city, had to be rebuilt. This major project introduced classical Greek art and architecture. The grand main gate to the new Acropolis is the Propylaea, a Doric structure constructed by Mnesicles in 437–432 b.c.e. It contained a pinakotheke (picture gallery), the first known in history, and a library where visitors could rest after the steep climb. Visitors would next see the impressive Parthenon, the ultimate expression of the classical Greek architectural style. It was built by Ictinus and Callicrates in 448–432 b.c.e. Plutarch writes that the structure was dedicated to Athena Parthenos (Athena the Maiden), who was the patron goddess of Athens. The Parthenon housed a colossal 40-foot-high statue of Athena Parthenos, who held a winged victory figure in her hand. The sculptor Phidias created the sculpture, covered with ivory and gold. It has since been destroyed. The Parthenon is a Doric structure, which includes Ionic features, specifically the continuous frieze that originally ran along the top of the exterior. The frieze depicts a procession of figures in motion with their draperies fluttering in response to their movements. classical art and architecture, Greek 85 This new art style using the expression of motion defined classical Greek art. This was a change from the earlier Greek Archaic Period with its stiff, frozen style of art. The classical figures were deeply carved and twist and turn within the pictorial space. Their draperies were composed of small, repetitive folds, seemingly pulled by gravity and motion and revealing the body forms underneath. This treatment of drapery is often called the Phidian style. The genius of Phidias’s counterparts, Ictinus and Callicrates, lies in the fact that they added optical enhancements to the Parthenon to give it an impressive sculptural quality. When a viewer enters an area they expect to see a front view of a building. The structure was placed at an angle so that when entering the Acropolis through the Propylaea, the viewer looks upon the corner of the large structure, seeing both the front and the side at the same time. This enhanced the three- dimensional aspect of the building. An optical illusion was created by building a foundation, bowed higher in the center of a wall and lower at each corner, making it appear that the corners of the building are even farther away. The columns all lean uniformly inward at the top, making them appear taller then they actually are. This calculated design was done in order to give to the viewer an impression of the Parthenon as being ethereal and otherworldly in appearance. The building was painted in several bright pastel colors, which enhanced the architectural elements and allowed the relief sculptures on the exterior to be seen from a distance. The Parthenon today is a shell of its original design. It remained intact until 1687 when Venetians shot at the structure that was then being used by the Turks to house their ammunition. The ammunition exploded, destroying a significant portion of the building. TEMPLE OF ATHENA NIKE AND ERECTHEUM The Temple of Athena Nike, built by Callicrates in 427–424 b.c.e., stands next to the Propylaea. It is a small Ionic temple, the first on the mainland. A continuous frieze depicts the Battle of Plataea, when the Athenians defeated the Persians. The Erectheum, like the Temple of Athena Nike, is an Ionic temple and was built to house the statue of Athena Polias. The Erectheum, named after the Athenian king Erectheus, was built by Mnesicles in 421–405 b.c.e. on the site where the contest between Athena and Poseidon is said to have taken place. It is also the site of Poseidon’s mythological well, believed to lie far below the building’s underground crypt. To add visual interest Mnesicles added three porches. This includes the famed Porch of the Maidens, where caryatids (human figure columns) are standing in contrapposto (counterpoise; literally, a counter pose where the shoulders are leaning to an angle in one direction and the hips are angled counter to that direction). This counter-angular stance of body creates an S-shaped stance, rather than a figure standing straight and stiff. These caryatids support the architrave (a beam that extends across the columns of a temple). EARLY CLASSICAL SCULPTURE Contrapposto was a Greek classical invention, first seen in a freestanding statue called the Kritios Boy (c. 480 b.c.e.). It was found in the Acropolis and named after the sculptor thought to have rendered it. This figure, a kouros (youth) type, is a transitional piece that falls somewhere between the Greek Archaic and Early Classical Periods. The male youth stands with one leg supporting him and the other leg relaxed, thus the hips are at an angle. His shoulders lean at an opposite angle. The shoulders and hips form two counter, or opposing, angles—a natural pose that represented a major breakthrough in sculpture as it implied movement. Also new in the Kritios Boy is the rejection of the usual archaic smile in favor of a neutral expression. True early classical sculptures are the two Riace Bronzes (c. 460 b.c.e.), among the few Greek original bronze statues to have survived. Most are known only through Roman marble copies. The reason the Riace Bronzes survived is that they were on a ship that sank in the fifth century b.c.e. and only found in the 1980s. Both of these bronze figures have the fluid, seemingly live motion of their relaxed counterpose. To enhance realism The ultimate expression of the classical Greek architectural style is the Parthenon, built by Ictinus and Callicrates in 448–432 b.c.e. 86 classical art and architecture, Greek the sculptor of these pieces used glass for the eyes and silver and copper inserts to highlight the figures’ teeth, lashes, lips, and nipples. Their contrapposto stance is more emphatic than in the Kritios Boy, as are the details of anatomy. The left arm in the Riace Bronzes moves forward to break into the viewer’s space, also breaking from the rigidity of the kouros-type figures of the Archaic Period. In c. 450 b.c.e. Polyclitus took the elements of these statues one step further when he rendered his Doryphoros, or Spear-Bearer, known only through Roman copies. With this work Polyclitus established the proportions for the Early Classical Period. This resulted in muscular, athletic figures. He wrote a treatise on the subject of human proportions that he based on a Pythagorean mathematical method. The ratio of these human proportions were based on the fifth finger, as a unit of measure. To him the harmonious ratio between the various elements of a sculpture were imperative. Once contrapposto was fully mastered, the figure could take on any pose, including the most complex. Myron, who specialized in the depiction of athletes, rendered the Discobolos (c. 450 b.c.e.), a figure throwing the discus, the composition based on two intersecting arches. The anonymous Dying Niobid (c. 450–440 b.c.e.), originally part of a temple pediment, shows the female on one knee as she tries to remove the arrow of Apollo from her back. She has been shot because her mother Niobe boasted of her seven sons and seven daughters during a festival in honor of Letona, Apollo’s mother. As she sinks to the ground, her head, torso, and left thigh form a straight line while her lower left leg, right thigh, and arms diagonally break away from that central axis. The contortions of her arms as she tries to remove the arrow have caused her drapery to slip off to reveal her youthful nude body, becoming the earliest female nude in Greek art. Emotion is conveyed, not through grimaces, but pose, and even then the pathos is restrained. For this, the sculpture of the Early Classical Period is normally qualified as the Severe Style. LATE CLASSICAL PERIOD In 431 b.c.e. the Peloponnesian War between the Peloponnesian League, headed by Sparta, and the Delian League, headed by Athens, broke out, lasting for 27 years. Sparta, with the help of the Persians, defeated the Athenians, who lost their preeminence as the strongest power in Greece. In the 350s b.c.e., Philip of Macedon invaded the Greek cities one by one, and by the 330s b.c.e. he unified them, establishing the first European nation. Philip was murdered in 336 b.c.e., and his son Alexander the Great succeeded him. Alexander engaged in a conquering campaign that took him as far east as India. These events marked the Late Classical Period. In this period Skopas, Lysippos, and Praxiteles became the leading masters. To this Late Classical Period belongs the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in Asia Minor, built in 350 b.c.e. by Satyrus and Pythius. It is one of the seven ancient wonders of the world. The building of the colossal mausoleum was commissioned by Queen Artemisia of Caria. It was to be a worthy royal funerary monument built for Mausolus, her brother and her consort, whom she loved. Artemisia summoned the greatest of Greek masters. The Mausoleum was destroyed in the 15th and 16th centuries but has since been reconstructed in the British Museum based on ancient descriptions and including fragments from the original structure. It combined Greek Ionic elements, including voluted columns (columns capped by a spiral ornament) and a continuous frieze, with non-Greek elements like a tall base, hipped roof, and colossal scale. In between the columns were statues depicting lions, and above the roof was a chariot with the portrait of Mausolus and Artemisia by Skopas. The portrait of Mausolus still exists and presents a different view on each side, denoting that, unlike most of the sculptures of the Early Classical Period, which focused on the frontal plane, this one invites the viewer to walk around it. The continuous frieze that crowned the monument shows a battle between the Greeks and the Amazons (an Amazonomachy), the battle of the Lapiths and the Centaurs, and chariot races. The sculptors in charge of the reliefs were Bryaxis, Leochares, Timotheus, and Skopas, the most famous. Here the figures are in higher relief, in fact, almost completely in the round, in aggressive, vigorous poses, their draperies responding more emphatically to their violent movements. The second major figure of the Late Classical Period was Lysippos from Sikyon, Alexander the Great’s official sculptor. Douris of Samos reported that Lysippos had asked the painter Eupompos where he obtained his inspiration. The painter pointed to a crowd to answer the question and then admonished the sculptor to follow nature instead of imitating other artists. His attitude reflects the Aristotelian approach of empirically observing nature and its phenomena and then replicating those observations on the pictorial or sculptural surface. Classical Period, Greek 87 Lysippos followed the advice. His Apoxyomenos of c. 330 b.c.e., a copy of which is housed in the Museo Pio-Clementino at the Vatican, presents an athlete scraping the oil and dust off his body after a contest, a common occurrence in Greek everyday life. Lysippus introduced a new set of proportions for the depiction of the human form resulting in more slender figures than those of the Early Classical Period. The body, when depicted, is eight, not seven, times the length of the head, supplanting the more muscular mode of representation introduced by Polyclitus a century earlier. As the arms of his figure lift to engage in the action of scraping, they break into the viewer’s space and offer an unobstructed view of the torso. This feature emphasizes the sculpture’s three dimensionality and grants it a greater sense of movement. Each side offers a different view, forcing onlookers to walk around to fully experience the sculpture. As the arms move forward, the back takes on a convex form, typical of the art of Lysippus. The final major figure in art of the Late Classical Period was Praxiteles, his signature work being the Hermes and the Infant Dionysus of c. 330 b.c.e. It presents Hermes, the messenger of the gods, taking the infant Dionysus, god of wine, to the Nymphs, who reared him. In Praxiteles’ work, Hermes teases Dionysus by holding up a bunch of grapes that have since broken off along with his right arm. The sculpture represents the humanization of the Greek gods and their portrayal as having the same weaknesses and faults as humans. The work uses the proportions established by Lysippos, but its elegant quality is Praxiteles’ own. He achieved this by exaggerating the S curve of Hermes’s body, idealizing its forms, and giving a dreamy expression to his face. Alexander the Great died in 323 b.c.e. and his conquered lands were divided among his generals. Egypt went to Ptolemy; Mesopotamia, Persia, Syria, and most of Asia Minor to Seleucus; and Macedonia and Greece to Antigonus. The outside influences brought by Alexander’s conquests resulted in an art that combined Eastern and Western idioms, marking the end of the Late Classical Period and the beginning of the Hellenistic era, when less restraint and more drama were infused into art. See also Greek city-states; Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric; Hellenistic art; Hellenization. Further reading: Beard, Mary, and John Henderson. Classical Art from Greece to Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; Belozerskaya, Marina, and Kenneth Lapatin. Ancient Greece: Art, Architecture, and History. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004; Boardman, John. Greek Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1964; Burn, Lucilla. The British Museum Book of Greek and Roman Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1992; Fullerton, Mark D. Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Lawrence, A. W. Greek Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996; Osborne, Robin. Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; Sparkes, Brian A. Greek Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Classical Association, 1991; Spivey, Nigel Jonathan. Greek Art. London: Phaidon Press, 1997. Lilian H. Zirpolo Classical Period, Greek The Greek Classical Period (500–323 b.c.e.) had a vast amount of influence on Western culture in terms of art, literature, philosophy, and architecture. This period occurred between the Archaic Period (800–500 b.c.e.) and Hellenistic Period (323–31 b.c.e.) and took place near the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Many renowned philosophers and writers appeared at this time, such as Aristotle, Euripides, and Sophocles. Greece was a collection of city-states with different forms of government. The Classical Period marked the contribution of democracy to Western civilization, with its roots in the city-state of Athens. It was an aristocrat, Cleisthenes, who brought the ideas of democracy to Athens in 510 b.c.e. The word democracy comes from the Greek word demos meaning “the dominion of the people.” Cleisthenes’ objective was to attain more power for the Greeks in Athens, by giving the people the power to vote. Democracy for the Greeks meant that a majority of votes, taken in an assembly (which was every male’s duty when randomly chosen to attend), decided an issue. Males who did not attend a required assembly were no longer considered citizens, and their civil rights were taken away. There were political conflicts during the Classical Period as well. The golden age, during the Classical Period, marked a time when Athens was strong. During this time the Greeks waged war on the Persians, who were a great threat with their growing military power, wealth, and size. A deadly war broke out in 479 b.c.e., during the Persian invasions, in which the Greeks destroyed the Persians. Although Sparta and Athens joined forces in their conquest over the Persians, hostility between the two city-states grew and eventually erupted into a war against each other, known as the Peloponnesian War 88 Cleisthenes (431–404 b.c.e.). The end of the Peloponnesian War marked the end of the golden age due to the Spartans defeat of the Athenians. Greek literature during the Classical Period brought about drama and its genres. The three tragedian playwrights were Euripides (484–406 b.c.e.), Aeschylus (525–456 b.c.e.), and Sophocles (496–406 b.c.e.). Euripides was known for such plays as Hippolytus (428 b.c.e.) and Medea (431 b.c.e.) and his development of the New Comedy, such as in Alcestis, all while bringing his realist views into drama. Aeschylus, a great poet as well as playwright, first brought a second actor to the stage. Aeschylus is known for many tragedies such as Suppliants (490 b.c.e.), Agamemnon (458 b.c.e.), and Prometheus Bound (456 b.c.e.). Sophocles was also a popular and talented tragedian who performed his plays at the Festival of Dionysus. Sophocles was known for writing tragedies such as his Theban Plays: Antigone (441 b.c.e.), Oedipus Rex (425 b.c.e.), and Oedipus in Colonus (401 b.c.e.) as well as Electra (c. 410 b.c.e.) and Ajax (c. 440 b.c.e.). Sophocles is noted as one of the first playwrights to bring a third actor to the stage. Philosophy was ignited during the Classical Period because classical Greeks started to realize the importance of rational thinking and that life occurrences happened by means other than the supernatural. This redefined and pervaded philosophical thought throughout Athens. The three major philosophers of this period were Socrates (470–399 b.c.e.), Plato (427–347 b.c.e.), and Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e.). Socrates taught Plato, one of his top students, his views on the world. Plato then went on to become a philosopher, and his top pupil was Aristotle. Aristotle, who developed the scientific method, went on to educate Alexander the Great. Much of Western philosophy has been built on these great thinkers’ ideas. Sculpture became more realistic during the Classical Period. The human form through sculpture became more precise and three dimensional, emphasizing Greek realist ideals. Phidias and Polyclitus were two popular sculptors during this time. Phidias (490–430 b.c.e.) created statues of Athena and sculptures in the Parthenon as well as the statue of Zeus at Olympia. Polyclitus, popular during the early fifth century b.c.e., sculpted a famous statue of Hera as well as one of Doryphoros, a spear-bearer. The masterpieces of the time characterized the Greeks’ use of ebony, marble, bronze, ivory, and gold. Architecture also became more distinct and had features unique to Greece. There were three types of columns developed during this period, demonstrated by the Parthenon in Athens: Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. These architectural features were named after the cities in which they were developed. Doric is the simplest column with no ornamentation at the top. The Ionic had slightly more elaborate decorations at the top and bottom of each column. Corinthian columns were ostentatious and were highly ornamental. Philip of Macedon (381–336 b.c.e.) unified the Greeks through conquest. The Classical Period ended with the rise of Philip II’s son Alexander the Great (353–323 b.c.e.) and his conquest of the Persian Empire. This led to the development of the Hellenistic culture, which blended the cultures of Greece, Indian, Persia, and Egypt. See also: Athenian predemocracy; classical art and architecture, Greek; Greek city-states; Greek drama. Further reading: Boardman, John. Greek Culture: The Classical Period. London: Thames and Hudson, 1991; De Souda, Philip. Greek and Persian Wars. London: Osprey, 2003; Freeman, Charles. The Greek Achievement: The Foundation of the Western World. New York: Penguin, 2000; Grant, Michael. The Classical Greeks. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1989. Nicole DeCarlo Cleisthenes (c. 565–c. 500 b.c.e.) Greek statesman Cleisthenes was an Athenian nobleman often credited with having given rise to the first democratic political structure in his native city-state. At the end of the sixth century b.c.e. he implemented various reforms that changed politics as well as life in general for the Athenian citizenry. The importance of Athenian democracy can hardly be overstated, not only because of its uniqueness and its expansion of freedom, but also because it allowed the golden age of Athenian civilization to dawn in the fifth century b.c.e. The reforms implemented by Cleisthenes in 508–507 b.c.e. brought a period of oneman rule by tyrants to an end and granted Athenian men unprecedented powers over their political community. In order to make such changes Cleisthenes first had to overcome numerous challenges and adversaries while continuing to deal with ongoing criticism. Still, some scholars argue that his reforms were largely self-serving by greatly benefiting him and his clan. Regardless to what degree Cleisthenes might have personally profited from his actions, there is little doubt that Athens did as well, while the rest of the world gained in having an early model of democracy to inspire later democratic political regimes. Cleisthenes 89 Cleisthenes was born in 570 b.c.e. into the wealthy and aristocratic Alcmaeonid family. He was named after his grandfather, Cleisthenes of Sicyon, who had ruled Sicyon and who had also established a name for himself for various other deeds, including an Olympic victory in chariot racing and a yearlong competition to determine the suitor who would marry his daughter. Megacles, an important Athenian statesman, was the eventual winner of the bridal contest, and the couple’s child (the younger Cleisthenes) was to follow in the family’s footsteps by participating directly in Athenian politics. Raised on the Homeric epics and inspired by the notion of immortality through important individual deeds, the young Cleisthenes had no shortage of ambition and determination; however, he found himself in rather precarious times in Athens. After the stable and rather prosperous period of rule under Peisistratus, who was hardly an oppressive or cruel tyrant, the situation changed drastically. Upon his death in 527 b.c.e., his son Hippias took over, and although he initially ruled in a rather passive manner, he increasingly turned to more brutal and dictatorial methods. The assassination of his brother and political confidante, Hipparchus, only made matters worse. In addition, a great deal of friction existed between the noble landowners and the farmers. The arrangement at the time forced tenant farmers to hand over a large percentage of what they produced to the landowners. The result was that much of the citizenry that lived off the land was poor, which included the majority of Athenians. The fear of politicians was that rival clans or families would attempt to rally the support of the farmers and the slaves so as to instigate a rebellion by promising to eliminate their state of destitution. Rather than attempting to address the issue, the tyrants of the past largely sought to strengthen the power of their proper family while weakening their adversaries and the people in general. The momentum for change initially began when Cleisthenes obtained help from Sparta in overthrowing Hippias. Despite his success in forcing the tyrant to flee, Cleisthenes was unable to assume the reigns of leadership as Isagoras, a fellow nobleman and powerful politician, immediately challenged him. By proposing a number of major reforms, Cleisthenes boldly garnered support well beyond the traditional bases of support in the aristocracy. He promised that all citizens would have an opportunity to participate in government and declared them to be his companions, or hetairoi. Realizing how powerful Cleisthenes was becoming, Isagoras, ironically enough, pleaded with the Spartan king who had earlier helped topple Hippias. Cleomenes, king of the Spartans, obliged and sent a small force with the intention of establishing an Athenian council formed of his own supporters. No match for the approaching troops in terms of military power, Cleisthenes had no other option than to flee. Isagoras established himself as head of a new regime composed of 300 other aristocrats that was upheld with Spartan military might and influence. Tyranny had crept its way back into Athenian politics. Cleisthenes’ clan, the Alcmaeonids, and numerous of his supporters were exiled from the city, and other possible hindrances to Isagoras’s power were slowly dismantled. The much earlier reforms of Solon were undermined, including the removal of the Council of Four Hundred, which was representative of the population as a whole. Eventually the Athenians became outraged at the actions of Isagoras, whereupon rioting broke out. To the surprise of both Isagoras and Cleisthenes the situation escalated into a large-scale rebellion. For two days and two nights the people besieged Isagoras, his supporters, and the Spartans in the Acropolis. Realizing his mistake, Cleomenes arranged for a truce. The fleet-footed Isagoras managed to escape; however, his cohorts were arrested and executed. The Athenians recalled Cleisthenes from exile and requested that he implement his previously mentioned reforms and aid them in establishing a government of the people with equality for all citizens under the law (known as isonomia). In order to bring about greater opportunity and equality Cleisthenes eliminated the earlier kinship clan system that was not only exclusive but conducive to domination by a single family. Whereas the city-state was previously divided into four clans along bloodlines, known as the Ionic tribes, Cleisthenes established a new system of 10 tribes that were based on one’s locale of residency, or what was known as one’s deme. The entire city-state was divided into three major regions: the city region (asty), the coastal region (paralia), and the inland region (mesogeia). These regions were each subdivided into 10 sections known as trittyes, or thirds. The 30 trittyes of the city-state consisted of the numerous demes, which seem to have numbered roughly 139 or 140. All male citizens at the age of 18 and older registered within their deme and this became an important association, more important than the previous phratria, or familial association, which further served to undermine strict blood ties. Cleisthenes also reformed the previous Council of Four Hundred into the boule, a council consisting of 500 members, 50 men from each of the 10 tribes. This 90 Clement of Alexandria institution was at the heart of the new system and served as the executive carrying out policy made by the assembly. Access to various levels of government was opened for members of society beyond the noble-blooded aristocratic class, albeit one had to have a certain amount of wealth or property. Cleisthenes also reformed the legislative body and introduced the policy of ostracism. In sum, building on the earlier reforms of Solon, Cleisthenes placed the state into the corporate power of the citizens resulting in a new political dynamic in favor of greater freedom and control for the Athenian citizenry. See also Athenian predemocracy; Roman golden and silver ages. Further reading: De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. Athenian Democratic Origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; Fornara, Charles W. Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991; O’Neil, James L. The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1995; Stanton, G. R. Athenian Politics c. 800–500 BC: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1990. Trevor Shelley Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215 c.e.) religious teacher and philosopher Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus) is one of many brilliant Alexandrian theologians that arose between the first and third centuries c.e. The writings of Jewish sages such as Philo and Sirach influenced all these Alexandrian thinkers. His teacher was supposedly Pantaenus, a noted Christian thinker who was principal of the “official” school for aspiring candidates for Christianity. (Conversion to Christianity required a rigorous initiation program in the early days.) Clement in turn took Pantaenus’s position and educated Origen, the brilliant Christian polymath of the early third century c.e. Most of the speculation about Clement of Alexandria’s life comes from Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century c.e. In fact, Clement never cites Pantaenus, and Origen never cites Clement. Eusebius’s claim that the school was an official catechetical school does sit well with the usual picture that historians project of the usually quite private institutes that are organized around philosophers and thinkers. Eusebius was enamored with Origen and may have simply wanted him connected to the apostles who would have set up such programs for believers. Eusebius says that Clement traveled around the Mediterranean world seeking out intellectual mentors until he found what he was looking for in Alexandria. The school he operated seems to have been set up for the rich and the educated. His writings give clues about the intellectual life of second- century Alexandria. The city was stratified into groups of “simple believers,” more advanced students of philosophy and religion to whom Clement offered instruction and advice, Christian Dualism and its adherents who claimed secret knowledge, and conventional pagan intellectuals and the pagan religionists who followed the mystery cults. Clement criticized the latter groups. The most famous extant work is a trilogy: “Exhortation,” “Instructor,” and “Miscellaneous.” The trilogy seems to address progressively select audiences. The “Exhortation” speaks to beginners and outsiders about the advantages of Christianity; the “Instructor” speaks to those who are converted and needing discipline; and the “Miscellaneous” is a patchwork of material, but at least some of it addresses those who are true “Gnostics.” While Clement writes in elegant Greek, at times he is pretentious and rambling. His main point is that knowledge of Christ as Logos brought salvation to the believer. Paideia, or education, is the way to know the Logos better, and Clement’s school was to offer this education. Clement avoided the heresy of Gnosticism because he affirmed the material world as real and Christ as incarnate (fleshly), although he conceded that much of the Bible was better understood as allegory and not literal truth. The problems people have with Clement’s thinking were many. He downplays the plain meaning of the Bible and through allegory brings in classical Greek philosophy. He fosters elitism in his preference for the secret and more mature understanding of religious knowledge. This elitism is found in the writings of later Christians (such as Madame Guyon and Archbishop Fenelon) and shows why the public resented second-century Gnostics. On the other hand, his theology is truly innovative for Christian mysticism, and individuals like the Pseudo-Dionysus, Meiser Eckhart, and John Wesley found consolation in his writing. See also Christianity, early. Further reading: Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. New York: Penguin, 1990; Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986. Mark F. Whitters Confucian Classics 91 Code of Justinian Among the most lasting accomplishments of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I (527–565 c.e.) was his comprehensive compilation and organization of Roman law. The emperor believed that law was as essential to the security of the empire as military power. His legal achievement (like his martial effort) was an attempt to ensure the power and legacy of his reign. Justinian selected and changed a commission, which included Tribonian, the day’s greatest legal mind, with the task of organizing the past and present laws of the empire. In 529 the commission completed its work, the Code, which arranged centuries of imperial legislation, removing that which was no longer needed. This code was revised and updated in 534. Copies were distributed throughout the empire, and only laws that were recorded in it were valid in the empire’s courts. After this Justinian entrusted Tribonian and his commission with the task of compiling, editing, and organizing past legal decisions or commentaries on the laws. This work, known as the Digest, was completed in 533. It was divided into 50 books, by subject headings for easy reference. Justinian further entrusted Tribonian with the publication (534) of an official legal textbook, the Institutes, for the training of lawyers. These three parts—along with a fourth part consisting of Justinian’s new laws called Novels (meaning new laws)—all written in Latin, became known as the Corpus Juris Civilis, or Body of Civil Law. This work had a profound effect on future legal procedure. The Corpus influenced Byzantine law down to 1453, when the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks. The Corpus largely influenced Byzantium through a later Greek legal compilation known as the Basilika (ninth century). In the West, Roman law was diminished by the transition to Germanic rule during the early Middle Ages. In the 11th century, however, legal scholars at the University of Bologna in Italy revived the study of Justinian’s Corpus. In the 12th century this study led Gratian, a Bolognese monk, to create a systematic organization of canon law (church laws) called the Decretum. This study also gave birth to secular legal developments in western Europe. The Code of Justinian still heavily influences many European legal systems. Further reading: Maas, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Moorhead, J. Justinian. London: Longman, 1994; Browning, R. Justinian and Theodora. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Matthew Herbst Confucian Classics Since the beginning of the historic period the Chinese have held the traditions handed down from antiquity with deep awe and reverence. Works traditionally accepted as the heritage of ancient times long preceded Confucius (551–479 b.c.e.) but are nonetheless called the Confucian Classics. The Five Confucian Classics are the most revered canonical works of the classics. They are 1. Yi Jing (I Ching), or Book of Changes 2. Shu Jing (Shu Ching), or Book of History or Documents 3. Shi Jing (Shih Ching), or Book of Odes or Poetry 4. Li Jing (Li Ching), or Li Ji (Li Chi), or Book of Rites 5. Qunqiu (Ch’un-ch’iu), or Annals of Spring and Autumn Confucius is the author of the Annals of Spring and Autumn. All others are collections of ancient documents that tradition says were edited and compiled by Confucius and his disciples. The Yi Jing, or Book of Changes, is a collection of short texts that give clues to interpreting the results of divination cast by priests by means of tortoise shells and milfoil stalks on orders from kings of the Shang dynasty (c. 1700–c. 1122 b.c.e.). According to tradition, Confucius wrote a number of “wings” to these texts that elaborate on their interpretations and explain their significance. Modern historians attribute the “wings” to eras later than Confucius. The Shu Jing, or Book of History, is a compilation of short documents. They are announcements, speeches, manifestos, and reports by ancient rulers and their ministers, beginning from the mythical ideal kings Yao, Shun, and Yu down to the early Zhou (Chou) dynasty (c. 1122–256 b.c.e.). Confucius, who also wrote introductions to the documents to explain their significance, supposedly edited them. Modern historians think that while the Zhou documents are authentic, ones attributed to earlier eras were written much later. The Shi Jing, or Book of Poetry, is an anthology of 300 poems. Some were folk songs, while others were 92 Confucianism as a state ideology songs used by leaders for ceremonies. They date to the early Zhou period and were reputedly selected and edited by Confucius. The Li Jing, or Book of Rites, is a varied collection that includes rules on the organization of the Zhou government, a code of conduct for lords and gentlemen, and rules for important events in life such as weddings, funerals, and sacrifices. The Duke of Zhou (Chou), a founding father of the Zhou dynasty, was supposedly the author of many of the documents in this classic. Again, Confucius is credited with selecting and editing the documents. The Qunqiu, or Annals of Spring and Autumn, is a chronicle of the state of Lu between 722–481 b.c.e. and was compiled by Confucius, who came from that state. The book is important because through his choice of words Confucius gave his moral judgment of the persons and events that were chronicled. When Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty made Confucianism China’s official ideology around 110 b.c.e., the Five Classics gained the status of canonical works. Great Han scholars worked on publishing an official version and officially endorsed interpretation. Students studied them and official examinations that recruited government officials were based on them, producing an educated elite in Chinese society for the next 2,000 years that were welded in the same tradition. More than a thousand years after their canonization, during the Song (Sung) dynasty (960–1279 c.e.) there was a great movement to reexamine and reinterpret Confucianism. It was called Neo-Confucianism. A leader of this movement was Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi), who lived between 1130–1200. Zhu encouraged the study of four additional texts. The Four Books are 1. Lunyu (Lun-yu), or Analects of Confucius. A collection of Confucius’s conversations and activities recorded and compiled by his students after his death. It consists of 20 chapters. They give clues to his character and ideals. For example: “Confucius said: ‘At fifteen, I set my heart on learning. At thirty, I was firmly established. At forty, I had no more doubts. At fifty, I knew the will of Heaven. At sixty, I was ready to listen to it. At seventy, I could follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what was right.’” 2. Mengzi (Meng Tzu), or Book of Mencius. It is a compilation of the writings of Mencius (372–289 b.c.e.), who was honored as the second sage of the Confucian school, second only to the master. 3. Daxue (Ta-hsueh), or Great Learning 4. Zhongyong (Chung-yung), or Doctrine of the Mean Great Learning and Doctrine of the Mean were two essays taken from the Book of Rites. They stress that improving the mind is the start of improving the world. As stated in the Great Learning: “Those in antiquity who wished to illuminate luminous virtues throughout the world would first govern their states; wishing to govern their states, they would first bring order to their families; wishing to bring order to their families they would first cultivate their own persons. . . .” The Five Classics and Four Books are the most revered books in China. They are also essential in Japan and Korea, countries that adopted the fundamental ideals of Chinese civilization. See also Hundred Schools of Philosophy. Further reading: Chan, W. T. Source Book of Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960; De Bary, Wm. Theodore, et al., eds. Sources of Chinese Tradition. Vol. 1. New York, Columbia University Press, 1960. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Confucianism as a state ideology Confucianism, originally an East Asian philosophy based upon the teachings of Confucius, has strongly influenced governmental structures and policies worldwide, particularly in China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Confucius, a famous Chinese philosopher who lived from 551 to 479 b.c.e., frequently expressed his thoughts in short sayings, such as those collected and preserved by his students and followers in the Analects of Confucius. Confucius did much more than teach philosophy and hoped to spread his thoughts and ideas to receive the patronage of one of the many lords competing for supremacy in China, and he even hoped to persuade Chinese leaders to follow his system of thought and values. Unfortunately, Confucius failed to have his ideas accepted by key rulers of Chinese society during his lifetime, but his concepts eventually developed into a state ideology. The development of Confucianism as a state ideology may be attributed to his followers or, to be more exact, the followers of his original followers. During a period of history in ancient China known as the Hundred Schools of Philosophy, or Thought, prominent Confucian scholars such as Mencius and Xunzi elaborated upon Confucian principles and spread the philosophy and its social and political influences throughout China. Confucius 93 Although briefly forbidden during the Qin (Ch’in) dynasty, Han Wudi (Han Wu-ti), the sixth emperor of the Han dynasty embraced Confucianism. He adopted the principles of Confucian thought as the basis for his government, laws, and ethics. In order to promote it he started a university to teach the Confucian Classics to new generations. Confucianism remained the most influential and mainstream school of thought in the China until the Chinese Communists led by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) stamped it out. Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi) undertook further elaboration of Confucianism as a state ideology, and he was indentified as one of the first Neo-Confucians. Neo-Confucianism, which was more appealing not only to China but also to Korea and Japan, incorporated Daoism (Taoism) and Buddhist ideas to create a more all-encompassing philosphy and ideology. The two most fundamental principles of Confucian governmental thought are virtue and merit. In order to govern one must first be able to successfully govern himself. As a result, the king or leader of a government must act as a “calm center” around which society is able to develop and prosper under his direction. Confucian thought stresses learning as an integral component of not only better governing oneself but also improving one’s chances for success within society. When later dynasties began to implement Confucian governmental principles, they established civil services exams for government positions, based upon the study of the Confucian Classics. In addition, they also incorporated traditional values of ritual, filial piety, loyalty, community, and humaneness. Confucianism still influences many Asian nations. Further reading: Berthrong, John H., Evelyn Nagai Berthrong, and E. Nagai-Berthrong. Confucianism. Oneworld Publications, 2000; Elman, Benjamin A., John B. Duncan, and Herman Ooms, eds. Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. Los Angeles: UCLA, 2002. Arthur Holst Confucius (551–479 b.c.e.) Chinese philosopher Confucius is the Latinized form for Kong Fuzi (K’ungfu- tzu) which means Master Kong in Chinese. He came from a minor noble family from the state of Lu in modern Shandong (Shantung) Province, which had been founded by the Duke of Zhou (Chou). His father died when he was young, and his mother brought him up under humble circumstances. Confucius founded a school of philosophy called Confucianism, which stressed ethics in personal and political life and which contended for acceptance during the era called the Hundred Schools of Philosophy in China that lasted between approximately 600 and 300 b.c.e. By 100 b.c.e. Confucianism had become China’s state ideology, and Confucius was acknowledged as the Supreme Sage and Ultimate Teacher. Few people have had a greater impact on more people for two millennia. Although many legends have grown around Confucius in later centuries, it is nevertheless possible to reconstruct a fairly accurate biography of him. Confucius had an education fitting for a gentleman. His hobbies were music and archery, but he had to make a living. He sought government service, but with a mission, which was to reform morals and bring peace. China was in an unstable state. The Zhou dynasty was in decline, and the feudal lords who were contending for supremacy paid little attention to moral leadership. Thus, he had little luck finding acceptance for his ideas and turned to teaching as an instrument for reform. He was China’s first professional teacher, charging tuition, but only accepting students of integrity. Whereas traditional schools for nobles turned out educated men who did their lords’ bidding, Confucius expected his students to play a dynamic role in reforming the government and serving the people. He taught more than 3,000 students, among them 72 were counted disciples. Most of his students went on to teach and further his legacy, spreading his ideals and debating followers of other philosophies. Confucius wrote a book titled the Annals of Spring and Autumn (Qunqiu), which was a chronicle of his state of Lu. The book’s title gave its name to the era it covered. Its importance was his choice of words to describe people and events, called the “rectification of names,” that conveyed censure or praise. According to the famous Confucian Mencius: “Confucius wrote the Spring and Autumn and rebellious sons and disloyal ministers were overwhelmed with consternation.” This book, together with the Yi Jing (I Ching), or Book of Change; Shu Jing (Shu Ching), or Book of History; Shi Jing (Shih Ching), or Book of Poetry; and Li Jing (Li Ching), or Book of Rites, constitute the Five Classics of the Confucian Classics and are the most revered texts of the Chinese culture. Confucius and his disciples are credited with compiling and editing the other Four Books of the canon and also writing appendices to them. One of these, Lunyu (Lun-yu), or the Analects, which means “selected sayings,” was a 94 Confucius collection of his sayings and conversations with his students that they gathered together sometime soon after his death. The Analects gives his views on things and events and paints him as a very human man focused on doing well by this world and not concerned about the divine and the next world. Confucius saw himself not as a reformer or innovator but as a conservator and transmitter of traditional virtues. His goal was to return China to the golden ages of antiquity, to the era of the legendary sage-kings Yao, Shun, and Yu, and more recently to the era of the wise founders of the Zhou dynasty, Kings Wen and Wu, and the Duke of Zhou. However, Confucius was a revolutionary in that to him the superior man who should lead achieved this status not by birth but by education and self-cultivation. When Confucianism was adopted as China’s official ideology, this radical criterion for assessing human worth would lead to the stress of education and the implementation of an examination system for recruitment of government officials that would make China a meritocracy. Because humans are social beings living in society, Confucius inculcated the following ideals of conduct. One was li, which indicated rites, ritual, or proper good conduct under all circumstances. Another was ren (jen), which demanded love and benevolence toward all beings. They should be practiced together to achieve full meaning. Since the family is the basic unit of society, Confucius also taught the virtue of xiao (hsiao), or filial piety, which is the honor and respect that children owe their parents. Confucius expounded that there are five key relationships in life, as follows: between parents and children, husband and wife, elder and younger siblings, king and subjects, and friends and neighbors. Three of the five are within the family, because family is the microcosm of society, and it is in the family that the young learn their first lessons. The first in each of the first four relationships enjoys higher status, but that comes with greater responsibility. For example the parents must not just feed and clothe their children but inculcate moral values and set examples for the children, who should love, honor, and obey their parents. If each person in any relationship behaves correctly according to his/her position, then the rectification of names has been achieved. Beyond the family, a king who deserves the name should lead his people by good moral example and provide for their welfare; and the people should honor and serve him as they serve their parents. The only potentially equal relationship is between friends and neighbors, who should deal with one another honorably and humanely, but here again, the younger ones should honor their elders. Self-cultivation and personal virtue are the hallmarks of the superior man, who had the duty to serve society. Confucius did not challenge the monarchical system of government but put a heavy responsibility of those in positions of power to lead well. He said: “To govern is to set things right . . . If a ruler himself is upright, all will go well without orders. But if he himself is not upright, even though he gives orders they will not be obeyed . . . Lead the people by laws and regulate them by penalties, and the people will try to keep out of jail, but will have no sense of shame. Lead the people by virtue and restrain them by the rules of decorum, and the people will have a sense of shame and moreover will become good.” He was no prophet, sought no divine sanction for his teachings, and believed in a natural and moral order for humans. To Confucius heaven was a guiding providence and human fulfillment could only be achieved through acting in accordance with the will of heaven. How can one understand heaven’s will? Confucius’s answer was to study history and literature because in them one finds the collective wisdom of humanity from antiquity. He attributed the ills of his day to the neglect of the study of history and music and the observance of ritual. This is why he treasured ancient texts and why posterity attributes to Confucius and his disciples their collection into the canons. Although a man of personal piety and reverence, he did not concern himself much with otherworldly concerns. When a disciple asked him about worship of spirits, Confucius answered thus: “We don’t know yet how to serve men, how can we know about serving the spirits.” On death he said: “We don’t know yet about life, how can we know about death?” adding, “Devote yourself to the proper demands of the people, respect the ghosts and spirits but keep them at a distance—this may be called wisdom.” Confucius’s disciples continued his work of teaching, debates with other schools on philosophical principles, and of public service when possible. Among his great early disciples was Mencius, whose teachings were collected into a work that bears his name and who became honored as the Second Sage. Another was Xunzi (Hsun Tzu), who also gives his name to a work. However, Xunzi is called a heterodox teacher who deviated from the true spirit of Confucianism because he argued that human nature was originally evil rather than good, as Confucius and Mencius asserted. When China finally achieved unification in 221 b.c.e. under the Qin (Ch’in) dynasty, it was under a hardConstantine the Great 95 headed and amoral philosophy called Legalism. Legalism and Confucianism were anathema to each other. The Legalist rulers of the Qin banned Confucian and other philosophical teachings and tried to burn all their books, allowing only Legalist and practical works to be studied. Many Confucian scholars were killed during the brief Qin dynasty. The demise of the Qin in 206 b.c.e. resulted in the lifting of the ban on philosophical debates. Within a hundred years the Han dynasty (202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.) established Confucianism as a state ideology, and Confucius was honored as the First Sage. Further reading: Creel, H. G. Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung. New York: Mentor Books, 1960; Rubin, V. A. Individual and State in Ancient China, Essays on Four Chinese Philosophers: Confucius, Mo Tzu, Shang Yang and Chuang Tzu. Trans. by S. I. Levine. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976; Waley, Arthur, trans. The Analects of Confucius. New York: Random House, 1958. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Constantine the Great (c. 285–337 c.e.) Roman emperor The reign of Constantine the Great marked the transition from the ancient Roman Empire to medieval Europe and a decisive step in the establishment of the Christian Church as the official religion for the Greek and Latin civilizations. His view of church-state relations affected the way that European governments were constituted for centuries, and his influence had direct repercussions on the administration of such countries as Russia, ruled by czars, even until the 20th century. Constantine was the son of Constantius and helena. His father was appointed in 293 c.e. as one of four co-emperors in the Tetrarchy set up by Diocletian. Diocletian chose to keep Constantius’s son under surveillance as his tribune. When Diocletian retired in 305, Constantine was allowed to join his father on campaign in Scotland. His father died in Britain, and his troops proclaimed Constantine as their new Caesar. Between 305 and 312 Constantine marshaled propaganda, troops, and resources toward taking sole power in the Western Roman Empire. He won a string of battles against the Franks and others and then marched into the Italian Peninsula with an eye on defeating his Roman rival. The key to his success was a risky battle fought outside Rome in 312. Constantine claims to have seen a celestial vision there that revealed his fortune and steeled his courage. At first he said that it was the appearance of his protector god Apollo who promised him 30 years of success, with the Roman numeral XXX appearing in the sky. As Constantine grew older, he decided that this visitation was of a Christian nature and that he saw a single cross with the words in hoc signo vince (“in this sign conquer”). The later Christian version of the story finishes with Constantine’s army marching to victory, the cross emblazoned on their shields. The place of the vision was the Milvian Bridge, now associated with the turning point of his life, his career, and the destiny of the Christian religion. Constantine thought the hand of the divine was on him, and eventually he identified the god as Christian. As a result, he began to be proactive in his support of the heretofore-persecuted faith. He restored properties to churches in the West and especially showed favor to the clergy. He met his Eastern Roman Empire counterpart and forged an agreement called the Edict of Milan in 313 c.e., in which the Christian faith was officially permitted. Though Constantine is portrayed as the matchless defender of the Christian faith by popularized histories, this interpretation must be taken with a grain of salt. For example, in his decrees he avoided citing specific religions or religious terms, thus he said “Supreme Sovereign” or “Highest God.” He did not require that his subjects do “superstitious” (i.e., Christian) practices to show their allegiance to the empire. He kept a specialist in Neoplatonism as a personal adviser. He did not officially persecute the Greco-Roman cults, apart from a few police actions. He warned Christians against taking law into their own hands in their zeal to shut down pagan shrines. He dedicated his capital city with both pagan and Christian rites and imported into the city many works of art from pagan temples. He continued the pagan Roman tradition that the emperor was the divinely appointed mediator between the divine and the empire, thus he intervened infrequently in church disputes. In fact, he did not formally enter the church through baptism until on his deathbed, reflecting his own anxieties about the impossibilities of living a life of holiness while serving as emperor. EAST-WEST DISCORD The concord with the eastern emperor did not last. In the East there was widespread mistrust of Constantine and continued harassment of Christians. War broke out, and Constantine again showed his military prowess. By 324 he became sole emperor of the whole 96 Constantine the Great Roman Empire. At once Constantine began to make arrangements to set up his capital in a safer part of the empire, in Byzantium (in modern-day Turkey) on the European side of the Bosporus. It was called New Rome, lower in rank than Italian Rome, but destined by Constantine to be upgraded over time. When he made the city his home and named it after himself, Constantinople, it was the sign that the safety and prestige once the possession of the Latin world had permanently migrated eastward. The light of the Roman civilization moved east, and the West began its descent into darker times. Constantine restored many of Diocletian’s reforms and renounced others. For example, he not only recognized the need for regionalized government; he set up armies to fight in the various European and Asian theaters of war. Germans and Franks entered into the higher ranks of imperial military service. These concepts paved the way for medieval society, with local lords who controlled smaller territories and personal armies. Yet, he did not accept Diocletian’s idea of the college of emperors, or Tetrarchy, and replaced it with a dynastic emperorship. He separated the military from the civil in terms of services and duties. He set up a new currency and standardized its units, a system that lasted for 700 years. He held serfs and peasants to their social positions so that food production and imperial projects such as army campaigns, road maintenance, and city building could continue with ample supplies of food and labor. At the same time he made a conscious effort to bring Christian values into public policies so that the downtrodden would be helped and especially the clergy could be promoted to a higher public status. The results for the Christian Church were that bishops were welcomed into his courts, Christianity spread even more rapidly, and churches were reconstructed and given proprietary rights. He took an active interest in such church-building projects as St. Peter’s in Rome and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. At the same time, since Constantine saw himself as the mediator between God and his empire, he often took on the role of referee in church controversies, a role for which he was not educated. He summoned the Council of Nicaea (325) and proposed the formula to be accepted to bring unity to all the Christians in his realm. Effectively speaking, Christianity achieved a prestige in the empire that future emperors such as Julian the Apostate could not reverse. BENEFACTOR OF THE CHURCH The last few years of Constantine’s life were spent in the East, either in his capital or on campaign, although he occasionally traveled to Rome or the Rhine to secure his domain there. His military activities were confined to controlling the “barbarian” tribes along the frontier and not fighting Rome’s nemesis, the Sassanid Empire. Later emperors were not so fortunate. Though a civil war broke out after his death, his influence was enough to give imperial prerogatives to his descendants for the next century. Later Christians lionized such a benefactor of the church. It did not hurt that Constantine was buried next to the Church of the Apostles and de facto numbered among them as the “13th apostle.” His friend, Eusebius, revered by later generations of Christians as the historian of the early church, also added luster to the image of Constantine through his biography of the man. Other intervening and contemporary sources and evaluations of Constantine were less enthusiastic. Around the ninth or 10th century, however, the reputation of Constantine soared to new heights as stories An obelisk memorial erected to honor Constantine in the city of Constantinople, known today as Istanbul, in Turkey. Constantinople 97 and legends abounded concerning his sanctity and supernatural acts. About 25 “lives” of Constantine have been recovered, both from the East and the West, which sing his praises beyond what was celebrated by earlier generations. As a saint in the Eastern Christian Church, his feast day is May 21. See also Apostles, Twelve; Greek Church; Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth; Latin Church; persecutions of the church; Roman Empire; Rome: decline and fall; rome: government. Further reading: Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150–750. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971; Gwatkin, H. M. “Constantine and His City.” In The Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. Mark F. Whitters Constantinople Constantine the Great’s city lasted as the center of civilization and religion for more than 1,000 years. Of the cities of the world, only King David’s city, Jerusalem, compares with its prestige and longevity. The ancient name was Byzantium. The foundation of the city dates back to the seven century b.c.e., and was known as a place of contention during the Peloponnesian Wars. Even 150 years before Constantine, the Romans had reduced the city to rubble for its insubordination and then restored it because of its strategic location. But it was Constantine who chose the city, lavishly made it his own, and destined it to be New Rome, capital of the empire. CONSTANTINE’S CITY Constantine at first planned to build his city near the famous city of Troy, but he thought better of it, perhaps because of his Christian sympathies, not wanting to adulterate his new priorities with Homeric religion. Byzantium had many natural advantages: It was surrounded on three sides by water, had excellent harbors, was close to the industrial centers of Asia Minor, and was accessible to the agricultural breadbaskets of Egypt and southern Russia. Important east-west imperial roads intersected here, including the famous Via Egnatia. The ancient city also was known for its wall, so the wall rebuilt by Constantine could fortify its landed side. Thus, the place was eminently more strategic and defendable than the old Rome of Italy, which was not built on the sea and did not have the same natural barriers to protect it. Constantine began his project in 324 c.e., and by 330 the new city was ready. The fortification was large enough that the boundaries encompassed empty and undeveloped areas. None of these walls survives today, but their outlines can be imagined from written records. Growth at first was modest, and the population was small. Constantine was determined to turn the city into Rome’s eastern twin. He doled out the same subsistence subsidies, endowed it with the similar civic titles and offices, and constructed the same infrastructures and monuments. A portion of the grain supposed to go to Italian Rome now went to New Rome, and eventually tens of thousands of its people depended on the free rations of food. Constantine put into place the aristocratic ranks and nomenclature, just like ancient Rome. On the higher ground he erected the acropolis, the center of community life, the site of his Great Palace and the Capitolium; nearby was the largest gathering place, the Hippodrome, where public games were held. Later all three of these locations would become the locations of wild and bloody imperial intrigues. Colonnaded roads and markets marked out urban districts. Gates opened up to the important trade roads. New Rome even had seven hills around which the city was planned, as in Italian Rome. The city was not overtly a Christian center by Constantine’s own design. The old pagan temples already in Byzantium were left undisturbed during his reign. In fact, the dedication rites for the inauguration of the city included pagan prayers and artistic donations from pagan temples. He built no more than a few churches; the famous Church of the Holy Apostles, next to his burial spot, was not his project, but his son’s (Constantius II). Nor was the city officially the capital of the empire until the time of his son, when Constantius inaugurated the senate and set up a hierarchy of imperial offices. Now old Rome began to be superseded by New Rome, and there was no turning back. In fact within 50 years or so, the Germanic tribes would overrun the old Italian capital, and to its bitter disappointment, Constantinople would not save its predecessor. GROWTH AND CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE The city continued to grow prodigiously over the next 200 years. By the end of the fourth century there were some 14 churches, 52 colonnaded roads, 153 bath complexes, and many ground and underground cisterns. The need for water storage pointed to the only 98 Coptic Christian Church thing lacking. Here the Theodosian emperors (or perhaps Valens) rectified the situation in typical Roman fashion. They engineered a remarkable system that connected water sources in the hinterland as far as 60–70 miles away with vast water reservoirs inside the city. Imperial sculptors even elaborately decorated the underground cisterns. Constantine’s walls were too restrictive for the burgeoning population, so the walls were expanded and the area of the city doubled. Some 400 defensive towers were constructed along the whole wall and the shoreline. The three-arched Golden Gate, still standing, goes back to these days, as do many of the walls presently standing. Here the Council of Constantinople was held in 381 to affirm the creedal statements of the Council of Nicaea (325). By the end of the fifth century the religious dimension of the empire registered itself more strongly. Urban monasticism developed in the city, along with an abundance of Christian artwork. In addition, Oriental and Egyptian influences started infiltrating its urban culture. Constantinople was no longer only an aspirant to the old Rome, but a new and transformed capital city in its own right. The height of the ancient city was reached under Justinian I and Theodora in the sixth century. It was the most important political, commercial, and cultural center in all of Europe. Lavish religious and imperial building occurred in this period. The monument that best defined Constantinople’s glory was the Hagia Sophia, a basilica that still dominates modern Istanbul’s skyline. Not only was the domed structure a daring and innovative symbol of Christianity’s official stature, but also it was a statement about Constantinople’s own grandeur. The city probably had between 500,000 and 1 million residents. An eclectic mixture of architecture and cultures was found in the sixthcentury city, imported from the far-flung corners of the globe. Even the Christianity of the emperors was more diverse than Hagia Sophia would lead the observer to believe, as the city offered sanctuary to various non- Orthodox Christians. MUSLIM INVASION A plague devastated the city in 542, and half the population died. The optimism that had marked the city as it grew economically and militarily for the previous 200 years was also soon to be challenged severely by the Byzantine-Sassanid wars, the unsuccessful sieges of the city by the Persians (616) and the Avars (626), and especially the rise of the Muslims in the latter part of the seventh century. The invasion of the Arabs in 717 and the loss of imperial territory to them brought the city to the brink of disaster. Nonetheless, the Theodosian walls faithfully kept out foreigners for some 1,000 years. Ironically, there was only one exception: In 1204 the city opened up its gates to the Western crusader “allies” who turned on the city and pillaged it. The treachery caused such outrage among the Byzantines that surrender to the Muslims was countenanced as a better fate. In 1453 the demoralized city gave up to the Ottoman Muslims with hardly a skirmish. See also Diocletian; Greek Church; Latin Church; Roman Empire; Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: decline and fall; Rome: government; Theodosius I. Further reading: Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150–750. History of European Civilization Library; London: Thames and Hudson, 1971; Dalrymple, William. From the Holy Mountain. New York: Henry Holt, 1997; Gawtkin, H. M. “Constantine and His City.” In The Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. Mark F. Whitters Coptic Christian Church The Coptic period covers most of the first six centuries of the Common Era. Copt derives from the Greek word Aegyptus, in turn derived from Hikaptah, or Memphis, the original Egyptian capital. Coptic Christianity is the form that arose in Egypt in the first century c.e. By tradition Coptic Christianity began when St. Mark, the African-born gospel writer, went to Alexandria, Egypt, sometime between 48 and 61 c.e. Previously, Egyptian Christians were mostly Alexandrian Jews, and some Greeks became Christian. Between his arrival and his martyrdom in 68 c.e., Mark founded the church and converted many native Egyptians. The religion grew rapidly in its first half-century, and by the second century it spread into the rural areas. Scriptures were translated into Coptic, the local language. The rapid conversion of Egyptians to Christianity led to Roman persecution of those who denied the emperor’s divinity. An edict of 202 prohibited conversion to Christianity. An edict of 250 required all citizens to carry a certificate at all times, issued by local authorities, affirming that the bearer had sacrificed to the gods. Failure to comply resulted in punishments, including beheading, being tossed to the lions, or being burned alive. The government closed the Catechetical School of Alexandria, forcing members to meet secretly elsewhere. The state limited the number of bishops Coptic Christian Church 99 to three. The era of persecution culminated under Diocletian (284–305). His election as emperor began the Coptic Anno Martyrum, year of the martyrs. Despite the persecution, the church flourished. The third century saw the formation of the church hierarchy, from the patriarch in Alexandria to the lowest priest and the monks residing in the eastern and western deserts. The Catechetical School succeeded Alexandria’s library and museum, which were world renowned even before Christianity. Located in the School of Alexandria, the library held millions of papyrus scrolls, all the knowledge of the ancient world. Ptolemy Soter established the library in 323 b.c.e. The school was the site where 70 Jewish scholars created the Septuagint when they translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek in 270 b.c.e. These same scholars set the order of books in the Old Testament, including the Apocrypha. Beginning as a scientific and literary institution, the library evolved into a university for philosophy and theology. The Catechetical School of Alexandria was the earliest major Christian theological school. The Catechetical School housed and taught the scholars who provided the philosophical underpinnings of Christianity. The school’s first dean, Pantaenus (d. 190 c.e.), headed a school whose faculty included Athenagoras, Clement, Didymus, and Origen. Pantaenus was replaced by Clement of Alexandria, noted for his work in converting educated Greeks to Christianity. Origen (c. 215) was a philosopher and biblical scholar who wrote more than 6,000 commentaries on Old and New Testament books as well as homilies that are the oldest known Christian preaching. He is known as the father of theology. Following Origen was Dionysius (the Great) of Alexandria, who became patriarch of the church (246–264). Didymus the Blind lost sight at age four but mastered grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, music, poetry, mathematics, and memorized the testaments. His pupils included Gregory Nazianzus, Jerome, Palladius, and Rufinus the historian. Didymus devised a system of engraved writing, 1,500 years before the creation of Braille. These scholars made the Catechetical School a center of Christian learning and a magnet for scholars from around the world. The Catechetical School was the birthplace of the question-and-answer method of commentary. While enduring Diocletian’s persecutions, the Coptic Church had to deal with the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Jesus because man had a beginning and God is eternal. Although Arius was excommunicated, he continued to preach and converted two Libyan bishops and the Nicomedian Eusebius. Arianism spread through Egypt, Libya, Palestine, and Asia Minor before finally reaching the attention of Constantine the Great. Followers of Arius and Constantine fought in Alexandria and Nicomedia, leading the emperor to call the approximately 1,800 bishops to Nicaea to settle the dispute. The Council of Nicaea (325), the first ecclesiastical council sanctioned by the emperor, included only six Western bishops because the heresy had not reached Europe. It involved more than 300 bishops from the East, representing all Christian traditions. At Nicaea, Arius chanted his beliefs, supported by dance bands and singers. Athanasius, representing the Coptic patriarch, presented a logical argument in opposition. The attendees debated before calling for a creed, which Athanasius wrote and the Council of Constantinople (381) adopted unanimously. The Copts and other Oriental Orthodox Churches deny that they are Monophysites because Monophysitism is heresy. Copts believe that Christ is both human and divine, united indivisibly by the Word and perfect in all respects. There were two patriarchs at that time, the Eastern Orthodox pope and patriarch of Alexandria and the Coptic pope and patriarch of Alexandria. Egyptian Coptic religion gave rise to the Christian monastic movement. Monastics believe in unceasing prayer, intense meditation, self-discipline through fasting, vigils, celibacy, poverty, and the renunciation of the flesh and the world. It began as early as the second half of the third century, spreading throughout the Christian world. Monasticism flourished even after the Edict of Milan (313) ended the Roman persecution of Christians. Coptic monasticism has three levels. First, Antonian monasticism entails a life of seclusion, austerity, and asceticism. St. Anthony exemplifies this approach. When an anchorite attains a higher level of holiness, he attracts many disciples in the second stage, and security becomes a concern. Settlements arose in the eastern and western deserts, and communal living became the norm for monks who spent the week alone in their cells or caves and joined together on Saturday and Sunday for prayers, teaching, and service. Cenobitism, or Pachomian koinonia, was the third stage of monasticism. Founded by Pachomius, a former soldier, this form included strict military discipline, regulating every hour of every day and imposing punishment for default. At the end of the fourth century Egypt’s deserts housed between 100,000 and 200,000 monks. The total Egyptian population was about 7.5 million. Cenobite 100 cuneiform monasticism attracted Greeks, Romans, Nubians, Libyans, Ethiopians, Cappadocians, and others. Each monastery had a section for each nationality and provided a fellow citizen to guide the monks. Prominent Christians who went to the deserts included John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople; the Italian Jerome and Rufinus; Cappadocian father Basil the Great, who organized the monastic movement in Asia Minor; the French saint John Cassian, and Benedict who followed the Pachomian model in the sixth century, but made it stricter. Coptic Christianity was devoted to missionary work from the time of St. Mark. In exile, in the armies of Rome, as travelers, Copts spoke and lived their faith, drawing converts as well as persecution. Coptic missionaries were in the British Isles long before the arrival of Augustine of Canterbury in 597. Some credit the Copts with bringing Christianity to the Irish (Irish Christianity was a great civilizing agent in the Middle Ages). Coptic missionaries preached in Africa, Arabia, Persia, India, and Europe. Nubia became Christian in 559. Coptic Christians Frumentius and Aedesius converted Ethiopia. Alexandria by the fourth century was the largest Christian city in the world. Monasticism attracted the pious but also attracted misfits and scoundrels, as well as young peasants, illiterate and easily formed into monastic mobs that could be used against heretics and political rivals in the church. Monks also served in the city’s hospitals. Those who came to study at Alexandria returned to their lands full of Coptic knowledge and the urge to spread it by writing, establishing monasteries and schools, and otherwise proselytizing. According to the Melkite patriarchs, who served as both civil and religious rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire, Egyptian Copts were heretics because they rejected the agreement of Chalcedon. Despite massacre, torture, and persecution by both religious and civil authorities, the Copts outlasted the state church persecution. Finally, in 642 Arabs conquered Egypt. Under Arab rule, the capital of Egypt relocated to Cairo, and Alexandria, including the library and museum, was burned. Coptic Christians continued to practice their religion but under the tight restrictions of Islamic law (sharia). Periodic persecution, particularly during the 10th and 11th centuries, and the European Crusades accelerated a gradual process of conversions to Islam, and by the end of the 12th century Egypt was predominantly Muslim. Muslim restrictions on the Copts eased in the 19th century, and in the 20th century Coptic religion was strong, with 40 million adherents worldwide. See also Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; libraries, ancient. Further reading: Coptic Network. Available online. URL: http://www.coptic.net (November 2005); Isichei, Elizabeth. History of Christianity in Africa. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995; Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976; Kamil, Jill. Christianity in the Land of the Pharaohs. New York: Routledge, 2002; Meinardus, Otto F. A. Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. Cairo, Egypt: American University in Cairo Press, 1999; Patrick, Theodore Hall. Traditional Egyptian Christianity. Greensboro, NC: Fisher Park Press, 1996; Pearson, Birger A. Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt. New York: T and T Clark International, 2004. John H. Barnhill cuneiform Cuneiform is a writing system in which signs are carved on soft clay tablets using a reed stylus. Cuneiform writing was used throughout the ancient world for more than three millennia until around 75 c.e. Continuous lines etched into the clay formed the earliest signs. Because drawing was a relatively slow process, signs were later created with individual cuneus, or wedge-shaped strokes, impressed into the clay. The wedge shapes became so characteristic of the script that, even though unnecessary, they were included when inscriptions were later engraved in stone or metal. The earliest cuneiform texts were excavated at the southern Mesopotamian city of Uruk and dated just before 3000 b.c.e. Denise Schmandt-Besserat proposed a sequence in which small clay tokens found throughout the Near East are the precursors to cuneiform writing. From the eighth millennium b.c.e., clay tokens of various shapes were used to represent quantities of items in order to keep track of agricultural products. To prevent unauthorized tampering, tokens were sealed and enclosed in hollow clay envelopes. Because the tokens would be hidden, they were first impressed onto their envelopes for easy identification. Soon it was recognized that the impressions themselves could convey the same information, without the cumbersome use of tokens. It is plausible that the etched sign was a natural progression from the impressed image. cuneiform 101 Most of the early cuneiform signs originated as pictograms, which attempt to replicate the appearance of objects they represent. For example, the sign for a bull resembles a bull’s head. Sometimes these pictograms were used symbolically to express the natural association of ideas. The sign picturing a star was also used to denote heaven or god, since the celestial realm was considered an abode of the gods. At the earliest stage numbers were not depicted in the abstract (for example, five) but were inextricably linked to the item being counted (for example, five grain rations). This way of conceptualizing numbers derived from the token system, in which each token simultaneously indicated quantity and identity of the object represented. Later development, however, led to abstract, contextindependent numerical signs. A basic cuneiform sign could be qualified by etching hatched lines over the part to be accentuated, a procedure known as gunification. In this manner, by etching the appropriate place on the sign for head, a new sign for mouth could be signified. Furthermore, combining two or more existing signs may create new signs. The sign for woman closely juxtaposed with the sign for foreign land yielded the sign for slave woman. Thus, the sign for bread within the sign for mouth resulted in a new sign meaning to eat. Logographic writing of the signs can obscure the language used in a cuneiform text. This means that each sign represents a word and, thus, gives no indication of how that word is to be pronounced. For example, the sign for king could be read in Sumerian as lugal or in Akkadian as sharrum. Indeed, the earliest use of cuneiform was merely mnemonic and not as a visual means to represent spoken language. In some archaic texts the signs even seem to be written in a random order, showing no attempt to reflect the linear sequence of spoken language. Nonetheless, the language of the Uruk tablets is shown to be Sumerian because of rebus writing, whereby a sign is used to represent different words or grammatical forms with the same pronunciation. For example, the sign for arrow (pronounced as “ti”) also has the meaning life. This would make sense only in Sumerian, where the word life is pronounced as “ti.” The total number of cuneiform signs is limited by polyphony, the case that a single sign may be read in different ways. Thus, the sign picturing a human foot could be read in Sumerian as gin (to walk), gub (to stand), or tum (to bring). Such ambiguity in meaning is sometimes clarified by the use of a determinative sign, which indicates the semantic category that the word belongs to. For example, the same sign could mean “day,” “Sun,” or even “sun god.” By attaching the god determinative before this sign, the meaning becomes unequivocal. Conversely, cuneiform has cases of homophony, whereby different signs share the same pronunciation. The use of logograms (word signs) for verbs suited the Sumerian language, which varied by adding affixes to an unchanged verbal root. By contrast, Akkadian inflected its verbs in such a way that could not be expressed by using the same cuneiform sign. Accordingly, with the spread of Akkadian in Mesopotamia, there was pressure to apply the rebus principle to cuneiform signs so that they indicated syllables instead of whole words. For example, the Akkadian verb “he gave” (pronounced as “iddin”) could be expressed by a sequence of these three syllable signs: id + di + in. This procedure preserved in writing the vowels of Akkadian, in contrast to the use of purely consonantal alphabetic scripts for several other Semitic languages. In the third millennium b.c.e. cuneiform was also used for the Semitic language at Ebla in northern Syria, as well as the Elamite language in western Iran. With Akkadian’s ascendancy as the lingua franca, the use of cuneiform spread as far as Egypt. Hittite, Hurrian, and Urartian documents have all been found in cuneiform script. When early pictograms are oriented to a position natural to the objects they depict, the signs appear in columns from top to bottom, and the columns are read from right to left. However, at some point in time, cuneiform signs experienced a 90-degree rotation in the counterclockwise direction (i.e., signs were now read in each row from left to right, and the rows read from top to bottom). The flexibility, with which tablets would be rotated during cuneiform writing, may have helped ancient scribes become familiar with reading signs in different orientations. See also: Akkad; Arameans; Egypt, culture and religion; Elam; Fertile Crescent; Hittites; Hurrians; Mari; Sumer; Ugarit. Further reading Nissen, Hans J., Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund. Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East. Trans. by Paul Larsen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993; Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. “An Ancient Token System: The Precursor to Numerals and Writing.” Archaeology (v.39/6, 1986); ———. “From Counting to Cuneiform.” In Before Writing. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992. John Zhu-En Wee Cyclades The Cyclades, because of their central location to trade in the eastern Mediterranean, have a rich and long history. They are a part of the vast number of islands that constitute the Greek archipelago in the Aegean Sea. The name was originally used to indicate islands that formed a rough circle around the sacred island of Delos. The Cyclades are comprised of around 220 islands, with the major ones being Amorgos, Anafi, Ándros, Antiparos, Delos, Ios, Kéa, Kimolos, Kynthos, Mílos, Mykonos, Náxos, Páros, Pholegandros, Serifos, Sifnos, Sikinos, Síros, Tínos, and Santorini (Thíra). While ancient maritime trade made the region important strategically and geographically, a reliable agricultural base made life on the Cyclades archipelago possible. The Cyclades may have been one of the earliest sites of the worship of the Mother Goddess cult, which became widespread throughout the eastern and western Mediterranean. All Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures including ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and later on, Greece, would feature prominent goddesses. When the Minoan culture flourished in the islands from about 3000 to 1450 b.c.e., frescoes on the walls of the palace, excavated by the British archaeologist Arthur Evans, featured a bare-breasted goddess with snakes. Snakes figured in many of the Mother Goddess cults in antiquity and had its parallel in the story of Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden in the Old Testament. Settlement of the Cyclades was sporadic. The Phoenicians were most likely the first settlers, while around 1000 b.c.e. the island was inhabited by the Ionians. In the case of Síros, ancient ruins, statuettes, and skeletons indicate the island had been settled by the Bronze Age. The very dispersion of the islands made seafaring a necessary part of survival, as islanders learned that they could gain by trading with—or raiding—other islands in the archipelago. It is in these early boats that one can find the beginnings of the oared galleys that would be a feature of Mediterranean warfare until the 18th century at least, when the Knights of Malta used huge galleys in their wars against the Barbary pirates. Cycladic ships were the prototypes with which ancient Greece would plant its colonies, beginning around the sixth century b.c.e., and with which Rome would become the mistress of the Mediterranean. The Cycladic culture peaked during the Minoan period, which was brought to life by the work of Arthur Evans with his reconstruction of the royal palace at Knossos. The story of European civilization begins on the island of Crete with a civilization that probably thought of itself as Asian (in fact, Crete is closer to Asia than it is to Europe). Thus, the Cyclades and Cretan Minoan civilization provided the first known fusion of Western and Asiatic culture. With the rise of Alexander the Great around 320 b.c.e., this would become the great Hellenistic civilization, which Alexander’s armies would carry to the very frontiers of India. See also Minoans; Phoenician colonies. Further reading: Bent, J. Theodore, ed. The Cyclades, or Life among the Insular Greeks. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002; “Tinos.” Available online. URL: http://www.tinos.com.gr (November 2005); Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002. John F. Murphy, Jr. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375–444 c.e.) theologian Cyril of Alexandria is one of the most renowned (and sometimes infamous) figures of the early Christian Church. Born in the late 370s c.e., he received both a first-rate classical and Christian education and was groomed by his uncle, the archbishop Theophilus, for a career in the church. At the death of Theophilus in 412, Cyril (about 34 years old) was elected to succeed Theophilus as archbishop of Alexandria. The early years of his reign were marked by controversy and intrigue, as Cyril was directly or indirectly implicated in conflicts with schismatic Christians, the Jewish community, the imperial officers of the city, and most notoriously with the mob lynching of the pagan philosopher Hypatia. One of Cyril’s great achievements in the first 15 years of his reign was the vast output of biblical commentaries on both the Old and New Testaments. Cyril was not only the strong and often aggressive leader of the Christian community; he was also a profound scholar and biblical commentator, and his production of biblical commentary is one of the greatest in the ancient church. Cyril is best known, however, for his extended series of conflicts with Nestorius, which began in 428. Until his death in 444, Cyril was occupied largely with the repercussions of his collisions with Nestorius. This conflict is the first installment of what are known as the fifth-century Christological controver- 102 Cyclades sies. At the heart of the conflict was the issue of how to speak about Christ as both human and divine and how to understand and describe the role of the Virgin Mary. The focal point of the debate was whether or not the term Theotokos, meaning “God-bearer,” could rightly be applied to the Virgin Mary. But beneath this question lay the broader issue of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Nestorius was concerned to distinguish clearly what is divine in Christ from what is human (and so rejected the term Theotokos), while Cyril was intent on securing the position that Christ is “one Son,” the eternal Word of God become man. At the heart of the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius was not merely a political rivalry but a nest of theological issues and a conviction by each that the other party was denying something essential to the Christian account of salvation. The conflict reached its climax in the summer of 431 through a complex set of events at the Council of Ephesus. The final outcome was the deposition of Nestorius and the approval of the council that upheld Mary as Theotokos. Actual reconciliation between Cyril and those who supported Nestorius only occurred two years later in 433 with Cyril’s signing of the Formula of Reunion. It was a tenuous agreement that was ruptured soon after Cyril’s death and led to a new outbreak of controversy that eventually resulted in the Council of Chalcedon (451). Cyril’s legacy as a man and as an archbishop is hotly debated. Some cast him as the evil villain of the controversy, others, as the resolute hero. Whatever view one takes, he is unquestionably the key theologian for defining the doctrine of Christ, and both the Greek Church and Latin Church revere him for his accomplishments. Pope Leo XIII proclaimed him a Doctor of the Western Church on July 28, 1882. His feast day is celebrated in the Western Church on June 27, and in the Eastern Church on January 18. See also Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; Nicaea, Council of. Further reading: Keating, Daniel A. The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; McGuckin, John. St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2004; Russell, Norman. Cyril of Alexandria. London/New York: Routledge, 2000. Daniel A. Keating Cyrus II (c. 600–530 b.c.e.) Persian ruler Cyrus II, also called Cyrus the Great, was the founder of the Persian Empire (539–331 b.c.e.). Born in about 600 b.c.e. Cyrus II was son of Cambyses I, grandson of Cyrus I, and great-grandson of Achaemenes, from whom the rulers of the Persian Empire take the name Achaemenids, or Achaemeneans. At the time of Cyrus’s accession in 559 b.c.e., Persia was only a small tribal state in a world ruled by the then-dominant powers of Media, Lydia, Chaldea, and Egypt. Of these the Medes were, like the Persians, of Iranian blood and language lineage and had entered the high Iranian plateau some 1,000 or more years earlier. In the first half of the sixth century b.c.e. the Persian tribes were vassals of the Medes, and Cyrus was the son from the marriage of his Persian father with the daughter of the Median king, Astyages. When Cyrus ascended the throne, his grandfather Astyages was still king of Media. In 550 b.c.e. Astyages, concerned that his grandson was plotting with his enemy Nabonidus of Babylon, summoned Cyrus to his capital, Ecbatana, for an explanation. Cyrus refused to come, and this led to war between Media and Persia that ended with victory for the Persians and Cyrus’s becoming king of both the Medes and the Persians. With Media conquered, Cyrus began a 10-year campaign that would create the greatest empire the world had known. He first tackled Croesus, the fabulously wealthy king of Lydia, and in 547 b.c.e. defeated him at the Battle of Ptyerum. With Lydia conquered, he quickly defeated the Greek city-states of Ionia, and the whole of Asia Minor came under his rule. He now turned his view east and conquered Parthia and Aria in eastern Iran, the Sogdians and Bactria in Turkistan and Afghanistan, and even the western edges of India. The Persian Empire stretched 3,000 miles from east to west but did not yet include the culturally and materially rich areas of Babylonia and Egypt. Egypt was left for his son to conquer, but Babylon was ready for a new ruler, and already those who wanted to see Persian rule in Babylon were growing in numbers. In part this was due to dissatisfaction with the kings who presided at the time, Nabonidus, who had been absent from Babylon for 10 years, and his regent son Belshazzar, referred to in the book of Daniel in the Bible. Equally important was the enlightened way in which Cyrus treated the states he conquered. Unlike the conquering Babylonian kings, and before them the Assyrian kings, Cyrus went out of his way Cyrus II 103 to win the goodwill of his new subjects rather than to frighten them into obedience. He presented himself as a liberator, treating prisoners with mercy, leaving local customs intact, and encouraging established religions. Cyrus attacked Babylonia in the autumn of 539 b.c.e. Belshazzar deployed his troops along the Tigris but was numerically overwhelmed even before Gubaru, the governor of the Babylonian province of Gutium, defected to the Persians. After a campaign that lasted less than a month, Cyrus entered Babylon on October 12 without battle. From that day onward he treated the inhabitants with utmost respect, ensuring that society quickly went back to normal life and that the gods that had been taken into the city for safekeeping during the conquest were returned to their shrines in the cities of Babylonia. Cyrus recorded his conquests and the way he treated the people of defeated cities in cuneiform script on clay or stone cylinders. These could be rolled over wet clay to create imprints, which when dried were sent out as letters or decrees. One such cylinder, today kept in the British Museum in London, gives us a glimpse into Cyrus’s empire; it reads: “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims of the earth, son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anšan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anšan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anšan, of a family which always exercised kingship, whose rule Bêl and Nabû (the gods) love, whom they want as king to please their hearts.” Later, on the same cylinder, Cyrus proclaims the freedom he is offering to captives. Some of those captives are the Jews who had been taken captive by the Babylonians in 587 b.c.e. and earlier in 597 b.c.e. by Nebuchadnezzar II. In the biblical book of Ezra we read that in Cyrus’s first year of rule in Babylon he proclaimed to the Jews that they were to “go and build a house for God in Jerusalem,” and to facilitate this he returned to them the gold and silver that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the Jerusalem temple. After his successful conquest Cyrus remained in Babylon about a year and then moved back to the high plateau city of Ecbatana, the ancient capital of Media. However, we have almost no record of Cyrus’s actions between then and his death. In 530 b.c.e. Cyrus left his son Cambyses as regent in Babylon and personally set off to deal with a problem on his far northeastern border. The campaign started well, but Cyrus was lured deep into the enemy territory and was there fatally wounded. His body was recovered by Cambyses II, and placed in a tomb at the Persian capital, Pasargadae, 50 miles north of Shiraz in modern-day Iran, where it can still be seen today. See also Akkad; Babylon, later periods; Egypt, culture and religion; Ethiopia, ancient; Fertile Crescent; Medes, Persians, and Elamites; Persian invasions; Sumer. Further reading: Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Phoenix Books, University of Chicago Press, 1959; Wiesehofer, Josef. Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD. London: I. B. Tauris, 1996. Andrew Pettman

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

CaesaropapismEdit

Caesaropapism is the idea that the emperor had complete control over the Orthodox Greek Church in the Roman/Byzantine Empire, relegating the church to something like a department of state, subordinate to, rather than independent from, imperial power. This is a western perspective never found in Byzantine sources. In the Byzantine/Orthodox perspective there was, ideally, a harmony between emperor/imperial power (imperium) and church/ecclesiastical power (sacerdotium), not a domination and subordination, respectively. The relationship of church and Roman state changed drastically after the conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great (d. 337). Up to this time Christianity had been a persecuted minority sect far from the wealth and power of the imperial palace and Roman aristocracy. By that time the church had developed a strong and effective organizational structure and leadership as well as a means of regulating problems (though these did not always prove successful) through local councils. After Constantine’s conversion the church was raised to a new level of affl uence and power, as bishops now became fi gures of wealth and infl uence. Imperial patronage of the church also meant imperial involvement in the church and, conversely, church involvement in politics. The emperor was constantly concerned to ensure peace in the church and took action when theological controversies threatened to rend it into competing factions because these quickly devolved into quasi-political factions. The emperor did not decide such controversies unilaterally. Instead, he relied on the church. The emperor, starting with Constantine I, summoned all bishops together to an ecumenical (“universal”) council where they could offi cially establish Orthodox doctrine and practice. The Orthodox Church recognizes seven such councils (Council of Nicaea, 325; Council of Constantinople, 381; Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, 431, 451; Constantinople, 551; Constantinople, 680; Nicaea, 787). Nevertheless, these councils did not always lead to harmony, since those condemned often broke away (like Monophysites in Syria and Egypt after the Fourth Ecumenical Council). In the later fourth century Emperor Theodosius I (d. 395) proclaimed the Orthodox Christian faith the only legal religion of the empire. Afterwards, adherence to the Orthodox theology of the emperor was the measuring stick for loyalty and citizenship in the empire. Church and state in Byzantium were thoroughly intertwined. The emperor’s power was perceived as granted by God and visibly shown by his coronation at the hands of the patriarch in the great cathedral of Hagia Sophia. The emperor demonstrated his God-given duty by promoting Christianity, protecting the church, and enforcing its regulations. The emperor’s role in the church continued beyond calling ecumenical councils. He also selected the patriarch of Constantinople, the leading cleric in the Orthodox Church. Usually the emperor selected him from a short list provided by a synod of clergy, but he could also choose another candidate altogether. Sometimes in fact, he chose a layperson, as he did with the ninth-century Patriarch Photius. C The emperor acted as an overseer of the church and was granted special privileges. He could enter the sanctuary (the area that is today behind the iconostasis), which was reserved only for clerics. He could also receive communion in the same fashion as priests. In addition, the emperor could preach sermons, as did Emperor Leo VI (d. 912), and bless the congregation. He also enacted legislation regulating church activities and even, at times, on theology. The emperor could not, however, celebrate the Divine Liturgy; that was reserved only for ordained clergy. Here was one area distinguishing imperial (imperium) and the clerical power (sacerdotium). Yet, as is clear, in Byzantium, church and state were linked together in an inseparable fashion. There was no clear-cut distinction between the impact of canon (kanon) and civil (nomos) law on the Byzantine community. In the 12th century canonist Theodore Balsamon declared that the emperor regulated both civil and canon law and argued that the emperor himself was not limited by canon law. Yet, this was only in theory. In reality, the emperor was indeed limited in his control over orthodoxy. While he could remove bishops and appoint their replacements, he answered to the church. When the popular patriarch John Chrysostom was removed in the early fi fth century, the rioting in Constantinople burned whole regions of the city. Moreover, the emperor could not permanently alter doctrine without the support of the church and especially the great defenders of orthodoxy, monks. In the seventh century emperors championed the doctrine of Monotheletism (which asserted that Christ had only one will for both his divine and human nature); despite their efforts it failed, because of the opposition clergy and monks, like Maximus. In the eighth and ninth centuries the controversy over iconoclasm was driven by the imperial palace and opposed fi ercely by monks like John Damascene and Theodore the Stoudite. This too failed. In the 10th century, Emperor Nikephoros Phokas wanted the church to recognize as martyrs all Christians who died fi ghting Muslims. The patriarch rejected this. In the 11th century, tension between the bishops of Rome (of the Latin Church) and Constantinople (of the Greek Church) led to the Schism of 1054 that separated the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches—despite imperial efforts to prevent it. In the 13th–15th centuries Byzantine emperors, desperate for military support from the west, attempted to submit the Orthodox Church to the papacy (at the Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1438–1939) but were foiled by monks and clerics unwilling to yield theologically. While the emperor had a level of practical power, this power was checked by the tradition of the church and by the unyielding commitment to principle of monastic and clerical defenders. Finally, despite the name (Caesaropapism) emperors never claimed to have the authority over the church as the pope, the bishop of Rome, did in the west. Despite the power of the emperor, he did not have complete control over the church, as the word implies. He was not pope and emperor of the Orthodox Church. See also Gratian. Further reading: Genakoplos, D. J. “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire: A Reconsideration of the Problem of Caesaropapism.” ChHist 34 (1965); Hussey, J. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986; Herrin, J. The Formation of Christendom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987. Matthew Herbst Caliphs, fi rst four Muslim leaders After the prophet Muhammad’s death in 632, the elder statesman Abu Bakr (r. 632–34) was selected as the new caliph or representative of the Muslim community. The fi rst four caliphs were known as the Rashidun or rightly guided ones. Abu Bakr irritated Muhammad’s daughter, Fatima, and her husband, Ali, by declaring that the Prophet’s estate belonged to the Muslim community and not to the family. Although Ali’s supporters reluctantly accepted Abu Bakr as the caliph they would ultimately split from the majority Muslim community. In what were known as the Ridda wars (wars against apostasy), Abu Bakr’s fi rst major challenge was to put down a number of rebellions by tribal nomads who opposed the central control of the Islamic state. Within two years, the Muslim forces had secured the entire Arabian Peninsula and ruled from the capital of Medina. With Abu Bakr’s death Omar was selected as the second caliph in 634. For his achievements as a ruler and administrator, Omar has been called the second founder of Islam. Under Omar (r. 634–44), the Arab forces, imbued with religious fervor and desire for wealth, embarked on a series of dynamic and swift wars against the neighboring Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. The plunder from these conquests was divided with one-fi fth going to the state and the rest apportioned among the warriors. 68 Caliphs, first four Ownership of conquered lands reverted back to previous owners with payment of a tax or went to the state. As a result the new Islamic/Arab empire became increasingly wealthy. At the Battle of Yarmuk the Arab Muslim forces decisively defeated the Byzantine emperor Heraclius and Damascus was taken in 636. The city’s grand Byzantine church was turned into a mosque and subsequently expanded. The Muslim forces swiftly moved on to Palestine, taking Jerusalem in 637. Omar visited the city and proclaimed that Christians, the majority population at the time, and Jews, as people of the book, had protected status as Dhimmis under Qur’anic injunctions; they therefore were to be treated with tolerance and no forced conversions were to be undertaken. Although over time many willingly converted to Islam, the population of the area remained predominantly Christian until the Crusades. Although the Byzantine Empire survived with its capital at Constantinople, the new Muslim/Arab empire now controlled the eastern Mediterranean coast and plains. After initial reluctance Omar agreed that the commander Amr ibn al-‘As could move on to the conquest of Egypt. Amr took Alexandria with relative ease in 642 and established Fustat, outside modern Cairo, as the new Muslim administrative center. His forces also pushed into Libya, taking the port of Tripoli. Muslim forces were equally successful in their battles against the weakened Sassanid Empire in the east. They won a decisive battle at Qadisiyyah in 637 and moved on to the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon, where the warriors collected enormous quantities of plunder in gold, silver, and jewels. In keeping with tradition regarding the apportioning of booty, the fabulous jeweled carpet from the palace was cut into pieces and given to the conquering soldiers. By 638 the Arabs controlled all of the Tigris and Euphrates and by 644 had effectively taken Persia (present-day Iran). Within a decade Persia had become a predominantly Muslim nation. The Muslim state absorbed many of the administrative and economic practices of both the older Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. Following Omar’s murder by a slave, the Muslim community again gathered to choose a successor. After some acrimonious debate, Uthman (r. 644–656), a member of the powerful Umayyad family, was selected as the new caliph. In his 70s Uthman was not as capable or popular a leader as his predecessors. After he appointed Muaw’iya, a member of his own family, as governor of Syria, Uthman was accused of nepotism. Ali and his supporters were also angry that he had again been passed over as caliph. Opposition to Uthman grew and in 656 rebellious troops returning from Egypt assassinated him and declared Ali (r. 656–661) the new caliph. Muaw’iya and the Umayyad family criticized Ali for his reluctance to prosecute the assassins; A’isha, the Prophet’s widow, also opposed Ali and mounted troops to fi ght against him. However Ali and his supporters defeated A’isha at the Battle of the Camel in 656, but in face of the open hostility in Medina, Ali moved his capital to Kufa. As opposition from Syria continued to mount, Ali prepared to fi ght Muaw’iya’s opposing claims to the caliphate. The two sides met at the Battle of Siffi n in 657. The fi ghting continued for several months and at one point Muaw’iya’s forces raised parts of the Qur’an to demand negotiations in accordance with Muslim tradition. Mediators, including Amr ibn al-‘As, declared that Ali would continue to rule from Kufa and Muaw’iya would rule from Damascus; this essentially meant that the Muslim community now had two caliphs. Some seceders (Kharijites) blamed Ali for his willingness to negotiate and in 661 a Kharijite assassinated Ali in Kufa. However the division between the Muslim believers over who was the legitimate ruler proved to be a lasting one. See also A’isha; Dhimmi; Shi’ism; Umayyad dynasty; Yarmuk, Battle of. Further reading: Muir, Sir William. The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall. Beirut: Khayats, reprint, 1963; The Cambridge History of Islam. The Central Islamic Lands, Vol. I; The Further Islamic Lands: Islamic Society and Civilization, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1970; Arnold, Thomas W. The Caliphate. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. Janice J. Terry Canute (c. 995–1035) king of England Canute was the younger son of Sweyn Forkbeard (c. 960–1014) and Princess Gunhild, and the grandson of Harold Bluetooth, king of the Danes. In 1013 Canute joined Sweyn on his third attempt to invade England. Sweyn forced the incompetent King Ethelred II the Unready (968–1016) to escape to the homeland of his second wife, Emma (c. 988–1052), daughter of Duke Richard of Normandy. The demoralized English Witanagemot (the governing assembly) acknowledged Sweyn as king. Upon Sweyn’s death in 1014, the inexperienced 18-year-old Canute fl ed to Denmark when Canute 69 Ethelred returned to England, reclaimed the throne, and was crowned on April 23, 1016. Ethelred died a few months later and his eldest surviving son, Edmund Ironside (c. 980–1016), was chosen as king by the Londoners, although the general population outside of London wanted Canute as king. Canute vanquished Edmund at the Battle of Assandurea (Ashingdon) on October 18, 1016. Edmund and Canute agreed to divide the country; Edmund took present-day Wessex, East Anglia, Essex, and London and Canute received all the other territories. This agreement ended the civil war. Edmund died on November 30, 1016. The Witangemot allowed Canute to succeed to the throne as king of a united England. Canute’s reign from 1016 to 1035 was initially problematic and engendered a considerable amount of bloodshed because of some resistance. Ultimately he was successful because he was deemed a Christian rather than a conqueror. Canute capably and fairly utilized the wealth of the immensely prosperous country. He gained the support of the aristocracy and realized his strength would lie in a strong alliance with England. Moreover, he respected England’s Anglo-Saxon customs and institutions. Canute issued dooms, supported the church by erecting churches, granted the clergy lands, gave them considerable treasure, and a peaceful environment in their monasteries. He brought unity to a land previously torn apart by centuries of Viking invasions, thus obtaining both English and Anglo-Danish support. Canute’s greatest contribution to the administrative development of England was arbitrarily to declare the administrative districts of Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia, and East Anglia. He placed them under the authority of a Danish earl, or jarl, who were under Canute’s fi rm control. After banishing his fi rst wife and their son Sweyn, Canute married the strong-minded Emma, widow of Ethelread the Unready. They had a son, Harthacanute (1018–42), and a daughter, Gunhild, who would later marry Holy Roman Emperor Henry III. His other son was Harold Harefoot (c. 1016–40) by his mistress, Elfgifu of Northampton. Canute also introduced trained infantrymen known as housecarls. These elite, honored, and privileged men formed the basis of the future English army and soon became wealthy—the English people were heavily taxed to support them. The housecarls were an entity unto themselves; they had their own regulations, judicial system, and huge arsenal of weapons. Canute promulgated a revised Anglo-Saxon legal code that respected Anglo-Saxon continuity. Economically, many towns emerged in England because of the vigorous North Sea trade. Socially the English people were content with their capable ruler. Harold, Canute’s brother, died in 1018 and Canute became king of Denmark. He was equally capable of ruling in Denmark as in England. Canute issued Denmark’s fi rst national coinage, separated the clergy from the realm, and declared peace and friendship between the Danes and the English. However England was forced to pay a Danegeld sum (tax) of £82,500 to Denmark. In 1027 Canute made a pilgrimage to Rome and visited holy places, sanctuaries, and the tombs of various apostles. He also attended the coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Conrad II (c. 990–1039). Conrad asked Canute to administer parts of present-day Germany. Canute gained control over the Danish parts of Norway in 1028 when the Norwegian nobles supported him in expelling Olaf II (Saint Olaf, 995–1030). Canute made his son Sweyn subking in 1029 with Sweyn’s mother acting as regent. They were driven out in 1035. Ultimately Canute’s huge Scandinavian empire was only held together by a fragile allegiance and was fi nancially supported by a bountiful England. Canute died in 1035 and was buried at Winchester. He had failed to leave a succession provision and his sons initially jointly ruled. Harthacanute took power in Denmark. Harold proclaimed himself king of England but died fi ve years later after a calamitous reign. Harthacanute then took over as king of England. Canute’s North Sea kingdom fell apart and his line ended in 1042. At Harthacanute’s suggestion the Witangemot chose Edward the Confessor (1003–66) as its king in 1043. See also Anglo-Saxon culture; Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Further reading: Brooke, Christopher. From Alfred to Henry III: 871–1272. London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1969; Fisher, D. J. V. The Anglo Saxon Age c. 400–1042. London: Longman, 1973; Larson, Laurence M. Canute the Great. New York: AMS Press, 1912; Stenton, Frank. “The Danes in England.” Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England: Being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton. Dorothy Stenton, ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Annette Richardson Capet, Hugh (c. 940–996) French king The founder of the Capetian dynasty of French kings (987–1328), Hugh Capet was born the second son of Hugh the Great, duke of Francia and count of Paris, and Hedwig, sister of Otto I, the emperor of Germany. 70 Capet, Hugh In 961 he was made duke of Francia, holding vast fi efs in these regions and administering considerable power over the Neustrian nobility. Around 970 he married Adelaide, sister of William IV, duke of Aquitaine and Poitou. The union with Adelaide added infl uence and prestige to Hugh, whose powers already were superior to those of the nominal king of France, Lothair (954– 986). Hugh’s rising power provoked a confl ict with the king, which became especially apparent from c. 980. In May 985 Gerbert of Aurillac, the future Pope Sylvester II (999–1003), spoke of Hugh as “king . . . not in name, but in effect and deed,” while Lothair was “king of France in name alone.” A year later Lothair died and his son Louis V the “Sluggard” ascended the throne, only to die a year later without an heir. Upon his death, on May 21, 987, Hugh was unanimously elected as the king and on July 3 he was crowned at Noyons. His power extended over feudal domains and towns in the areas of Paris, Orléans, Senlis, Chartres, Touraine, and Anjou, while vassals, who might challenge his authority, held other parts of France. Shortly after his coronation Charles of Lorraine, Louis V’s uncle, presented his claims to the throne, although Adalberon dissuaded him from using force against the new king. In 988 the townsmen of Laon handed their city over to Charles, and Hugh failed to recapture it. Hugh’s power was challenged not only by his lay rivals, but also by some ecclesiastical authorities. In 989 Adalberon, bishop of Reims, died and his place was taken by Arnoulf, who refused to acknowledge the Capetian rule and attempted to restore the Carolingian dynasty, with Charles of Lorraine as the king. Gerbert switched sides too, for a brief time, proclaiming Charles as the legitimate king and calling Hugh the “interrex,” or temporary king. Charles had Laon and Reims in his hands. The signifi cance of the control over the latter city was twofold, for Charles exercised his power not only over his secular subjects, but also over the archbishop, who crowned kings. The situation was highly unfavorable to Hugh, who acted decisively to restore his power. On March 991 Arnoulf and Charles were captured and imprisoned. In the same month the bishop of Laon returned to Hugh and left his town exposed to the king’s mercy. The Council of St. Basle (June 17–18, 991) deposed Arnoulf and elevated Gerbert, who changed sides again, to the archbishopric. The deposition of Arnoulf and installation of Gerbert consolidated Hugh’s royal power, while the cities of Reims and Laon seemed to stay loyal to him. Charles and his family died in captivity. The papacy remained silent regarding the deposition of Arnoulf. It was probably under the infl uence of Otto III, the German emperor (983–1002) that John XVI (985–996) banned the appointment of Gerbert. Hugh sought to gain the support of the French churchmen against the pope, who was in that time a puppet in the hands of the German emperor. He bequeathed lands to monasteries and defended their rights against lay lords and bishops. Between 991 and 996 Hugh and his son issued a number of charters. Most of Hugh’s barons recognized his authority and suzerainty, but there was one last attempt to overthrow him. In 995 Odo of Blois and Adalberon, bishop of Laon, attempted to reinstall a son of Charles of Lorraine as the king. Their plan was revealed and crushed. In order to consolidate the power of the nascent dynasty, Hugh sought a suitable mate for his son, Prince Robert, later Robert II the Pious (996–1031). After he failed to obtain him a bride from the Byzantine court, he married him to Rozola Susanna, the widow of the count of Flanders and daughter of a former king of Italy. The marriage likely took place in 989 and lasted until 992, when Robert divorced his wife, who was about 15 years older than he. Hugh died in October 996, while on a military campaign near Tours. Perhaps an insignifi cant fi gure compared to his later descendants, Hugh was remembered as a symbol of the French monarchy and was commemorated in the literature of the High and Late Middle Ages, chiefl y in the chanson de geste genre, as well as in some English literary sources. The Capetian dynasty ruled in France until 1328. Their authority was largely decentralized until the end of the 12th century, mainly because of the emerging power of the Norman dukes, who also ruled as kings of England since the Norman Conquest of England of 1066 and exercised control over Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine from the ascension of Henry II Plantagenet in 1154. The Aragonese Crown periodically encroached on some of southern territories. Royal power became increasingly centralizing under Philip II Augustus (1180–1223), who reconquered Normandy from the hands of John the Lackland of England (1199–1216) in 1204 and annexed considerable territories of Languedoc, in the course of the Albigensian Crusade (1209– 29) and the war against Pedro of Aragon (1213). Philip’s heirs adopted the same policy of expansion and consolidation, including Louis VIII (1223–26), Louis IX the Saint (1226–70), Philip III the Bold (1270–85), and Philip IV the Fair (1285–1314). The latter had three sons, Louis X (1314–16), Philip V (1316–22), and Charles IV (1322–28), who died without heirs. As the result, the rule of the direct Capetian kings came to its end and the Crown passed to the dynasty of Valois, a branch Capet, Hugh 71 of the Capetian family. The death of the last Capetian led also to the outburst of the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) between England and France. See also Frankish tribe. Further reading: Goetz, Hans-Werner. “Hugo Capet, 987– 996.” In Die französischen Könige des Mittelalters: Von Odo bis Karl VIII. Ed. by Joachim Ehlers, Heribert Müller, and Bernd Schneidmüller. München: C.H. Beck, 1996; Hallam, Elizabeth M. Capetian France, 987–1328. New York: Longman, 2001; Lewis, Andrew W. Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familial Order and the State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981; Lot, Ferdinand. Études sur le règne de Hugues Capet et la fi n du Xe siècle. Paris: Bouillon, 1903; Pognon, Edmond. Hugues Capet roi de France. Paris: Albin Michel, 1966; Sassier, Yves. Hugues Capet. Paris: Gallimard, 1984. Philip Slavin Carolingian dynasty The Carolingian dynasty was a family of Frankish tribe nobles who came to rule over much of western Europe from 751 to 987. The dynasty’s most prominent member was Charlemagne. The family originally served as hereditary mayors of the palace of Austrasia, the northeastern section of the kingdom of the Franks comprising modern-day eastern France, western Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, under the ruling Merovingian dynasty. Pepin (or Pippin) I of Landen (580–640) assumed the position of mayor of the palace during the reign of the Merovingian king, Clotaire II (584–629). The post of mayor of the palace, known in Latin as maior domus, came to hold decision-making authority, while the king served as a reigning fi gurehead. Pepin I’s daughter married the son of Saint Arnulf, bishop of Metz (582–640), uniting two of the most prominent Frankish noble families. Their son, Pepin II of Heristal (c. 635–714), continued the family’s dominance, conquering Neustria, the western section of the kingdom of the Franks comprising most of presentday northern France, in 687. He became mayor of the palace in Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. The names used to identify the family (Pippinid or Arnulfi ng) derived from one of Pepin II’s grandfathers. Later known as the Carolingian family, the Pippinid family made the post of mayor of the palace hereditary. The most famous Carolingian mayor of the palace was Charles Martel (686–791)—known variously as Carolus Martellus in Latin or Charles “the Hammer” in English—who served as mayor of the palace of the three Frankish kingdoms. In 732 he won the Battle of Tours, which halted an advancing Muslim army from overrunning western Europe. According to Frankish custom, following Charles Martel’s death, his position was divided between his two sons, Pepin III (714–768), known as “the Short,” in Neustria, and Carloman (710–754) in Austrasia. Pepin III secured papal and noble support to seize power. Pepin III, reuniting Austrasia and Neustria into one kingdom, usurped the Crown of the Merovingians to become the ruling king in 751. He became the founder of the Carolingian dynasty as King Pepin I. The pope anointed Pepin I, also granting him the title of Roman Patrician. Pepin I also created the Papal States out of conquered territory in central Italy, giving it to the pope to administer. Following Pepin I’s death, his kingdom was divided equally among his two sons, Carloman (755–771) and Charlemagne (c. 742–814). Following Carloman’s death in 771, Charlemagne became sole ruler. Charlemagne (known as Carolus Magnus in Latin, Charles the Great in English, and Karl der Grosse in German) expanded the Frankish empire toward the south, conquering much of southern Germany, including Bavaria and Saxony, and northern and central Italy, to reunite most of the former Western Roman Empire. Charlemagne’s empire came to include present-day France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and parts of Italy and Spain. He continued his alliance with the pope in Rome, promoting religious reform and cultural growth. Consequently Pope Leo III (d. 816) crowned Charlemagne Roman emperor on December 25, 800. The coronation solidifi ed the alliance between the Carolingian emperors and the pope, who provided his blessing on Frankish conquests, which resulted in the spread of Christianity. In 806 Charlemagne created a plan for the division of his empire among his sons. However on Charlemagne’s death in 814, his sole surviving son, Louis I (778–840), known as “the Pious,” came to the throne. Both Charlemagne and Louis I worked to centralize authority throughout the empire. They appointed nobles as administrators, leading to the development of a feudalistic society under the emperor. After Louis I’s death, his three sons, Lothair (795–855), Louis “the German” (804–876), and Charles “the Bald” (823–877), fought for control of the Frankish empire. In 843 the Treaty of Verdun divided the empire into three segments (West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia) among each of Louis I’s sons. Under Carolingian rule, cultural and 72 Carolingian dynasty linguistic divisions occurred within the Frankish Empire. The eastern Frankish people retained their Germanic dialects, while the western Franks spoke a language that developed into Old French, an amalgam of Gallo-Latin and Germanic dialects. The division of the Frankish Empire was not only a political delineation, but also a cultural and linguistic one. Following Lothair I’s death in 855, Middle Francia was divided among his sons and renewed tensions arose between the various factions of the Carolingians. The Carolingians maintained control of Middle Francia, which became the kingdoms of Lotharingia and Provence, and Lombardy, the eldest retaining the empty title of emperor until 899. Despite ensuing rivalries and invasions, the Carolingians retained control of the eastern portion of the Frankish Empire until 911. East Francia served as the nucleus for the later Holy Roman Empire, sometimes referred to as the First Reich (First Empire). Over time East Francia’s political centralization dissolved into regional duchies, which operated as petty kingdoms. Such fragmentation continued, with local rulers promoting their own interests and autonomy within the kingdom as a whole. Following the death of Louis “the Child” (893–911), the last Carolingian ruler, nobles eventually elected Henry the Fowler (876–936), duke of Saxony, to succeed. Sometimes referred to as the Ottonians, after Henry I’s son Otto I (912–973), who was crowned fi rst Holy Roman Emperor in 962, the dynasty presented themselves as continuous successors to the Carolingians. The duchies’ powers increased as the Holy Roman Emperors did not assume their position through a blood link, but rather by election from the rulers of the most prominent kingdoms within the empire. Consequently they ruled over a confederation of sovereign territories, rather than a feudal empire. West Francia (known variously as Francia Occidentalis and the Kingdom of the West Franks), the western portion of the former Frankish Empire, was dominated by several feudal lords, who elected the count of Paris, Hugh Capet (938–996), as king of France in 987 following the death of the last Carolingian ruler. He became the founder of the French royal house, the Capetians (987–1328), which included the later cadet branches: the Valois (1328–1589), the Bourbons (1589–1792, 1814, 1815–30), and the Bourbon-Orléans (1830–48). See also Carolingian Renaissance; Pepin, Donation of. Further reading: Dutton, Paul Edward, ed. Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004; Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979; Ganschof, François Louis. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971; McKitterick, Rosamond. The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, 751–987. New York: Longman, 1983; McKitterick, Rosamond. History and Memory in the Carolingian World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Trans. by Michael Idomir Allen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Eric Martone Charlemagne’s empire included today’s France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and parts of Italy and Spain. Carolingian dynasty 73 Carolingian Renaissance The Carolingian Renaissance is the name given to the revival of classical learning and culture that occurred during the late eighth and ninth centuries, a period that roughly corresponds to the rule of the Frankish emperor Charlemagne (768–814) and his successors during the Carolingian dynasty. Prior to Charlemagne’s ascension to the throne, the Merovingian dynasty had established a court school (known as the scola palatina) in order to prepare young Frankish nobles for their future political roles. Literary education remained, however, the responsibility of the monastic and cathedral schools. Charlemagne vastly increased the responsibilities of the palace school, which became an important repository of learning and a center of educational reform. He also issued a series of royal decrees calling for the general improvement of all schools throughout the empire. To help him in these efforts, he recruited the English monk Alcuin of York (c. 730–804) to become head of the palace school in 782. With Alcuin’s guidance Charlemagne initiated a generalized reform of the church. This bold venture began with the moral and intellectual schooling of the monastic and secular clergy. The famous edict of 785, known as the Epistola de litteris colendis (Epistle on cultivating letters), called for the clergy to study Latin to understand Christian doctrine. Charlemagne voiced his disapproval that many written communications received from his monasteries contained grammatical errors and uncouth language. Once they had mastered correct Latin syntax and style, he noted, the clergy must teach all those who were able and willing to learn. In 789 the Council of Aachen reinforced that each monastery and abbey ought to have a school. Charlemagne sought to make education available to all children throughout his territories, whether they intended to enter the cloister or not. The rise of Latin literacy among the lay population attests to the success of these efforts. Charlemagne also understood that his clergymen could not become effective preachers if they did not have access to authoritative, reliable copies of the Holy Scriptures. He commissioned Alcuin to ensure that every monastery and church receive a copy of the Vulgate that was free from scribal errors. The copying and distribution of basic texts placed new pressure on the manuscript scriptoria (or “copying rooms”). In an effort to harmonize the quality of preaching, Charlemagne commissioned Paul the Deacon (c. 720–799) to compile sermons for all the feast days. These were to serve as models for the local priests to implement and rework. Emphasis was also placed on monastic reform. In an effort to enforce the Rule of St. Benedict, Charlemagne ordered that an error-free manuscript of the Rule be brought from Monte Cassino in Italy, and that copies of it be distributed to all of his monasteries. The school curriculum, inspired by the writings of Augustine of Hippo, focused on a close study of Christian doctrine and classical authors, which served as models of good style. Students studied and learned the Psalms and were initiated—through works like Martianus Capella’s Marriage of Mercury and Philology (fl . 430), and Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies (c. 615– 630)—to the seven liberal arts. Special attention was given to the three arts belonging to Boethius’s trivium: grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic. More advanced students were also introduced to the scientifi c arts of the quadri vium: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and harmony (or music). Ferrières gained renown for its meticulous study of classical literature; the schools of Laon and Fulda were centers of biblical exegesis; St. Wandrille surpassed all others in the study of music; Tours and Reichenau were famous for their copying and editing of manuscripts. Approximately 70 schools—located throughout Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, and northern Spain—have left us some record of their activities during the ninth century Charlemagne’s library included works of Horace, Lucan, Terence, Statius, Juvenal, Tibullus, Claudian, Martial, Cicero, Servius, Sallust, Virgil, Macrobius, Ovid, and Priscian. Abbots in the provinces could enrich their collections by ordering copies of books in the palace library, or in other surrounding monastic and cathedral libraries. Alcuin believed it was important to make manuscripts easier to read, by adopting punctuation and adding spaces between words. Furthermore since writing materials were scarce and expensive, developing a clear and compact script was a high priority. Medieval scribes had inherited several scripts from the Romans, such as rustic capitals, uncial, half-uncial, and cursive. Rustic capitals are frequently found in inscriptions and law codes. The script consists of large, narrow capital letters placed side by side. Uncial and half-uncial used more rounded letters. All three of these scripts were cumbersome and occupied a large amount of space. In an effort to make the most out of an expensive sheet of parchment (sheep’s skin) or vellum (calf’s skin), legal documents and business records were generally written in cursive hand, which was particularly diffi cult to read. Irish bookhand, for example, was a beautiful and elaborate script, but it was diffi - cult to write and the letters remained very large. In the 74 Carolingian Renaissance 770s, the monks of Corbie—a sister-establishment of Luxeuil, the Irish abbey founded in the sixth century by St. Columba—developed a compact, rounded, regular and very legible script, which became known as “Carolingian minuscule,” because of its small size. Alcuin immediately introduced the script to the palace school and scriptorium, where it was used to copy the Bible, writings of the church fathers, and classical works. Carolingian minuscule quickly spread throughout the empire. During the 20th century, it continued to survive as the standard typewriter font, and it forms the basis of the Times New Roman computer font. Carolingian scholars did not limit themselves to copying manuscripts. They also composed their own works: textbooks for the study of the liberal arts, biblical commentaries, dictionaries, glossaries, bilingual word lists, compilations, spelling handbooks, commentaries, and summaries of ancient works. An impressive body of hagiographical literature (such as saints’ lives) also dates from the Carolingian revival. Numerous political and historical writings inspired by classical models have survived, including Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne (based on the Lives of the Twelve Caesars) and Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards. Carolingian authors like Walafrid Strabo (c. 808–899), Sedulius Scottus (fl . 848–874) and Lupus of Ferrières (c. 805–862), wrote more than 3,200 pages of original Latin poetry. Although men remained the most active players in the Carolingian Renaissance, study programs for women were implemented in female monasteries, and women played an important role as teachers outside their religious communities. A female hermit educated St. Wiborada, and in the early 840s a woman named Dhuoba composed a Liber Manualis (a sort of grammar book) to instruct her son, William. The granddaughters of Judith, second wife of Louis the Pious, inherited part of their father’s library; female monasteries—like Chelles, Jouarre, Säckingen, Remiremont, Herford, Poitiers, Soissons, Essen, and Brescia—had their own scriptoria. Irish scholars (known as the scholastici) also played an important role. Toward the end of the ninth century the monk Notker—a teacher, scribe, and librarian at the Irish monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland—commemorated their infl uence in a famous anecdote. Two Irishmen, he claims, went to the court of Charlemagne and so greatly impressed the emperor that he extended his patronage to them. Einhard confi rms that Charlemagne “held the Irish in special esteem.” After Alcuin’s retirement from public life to the monastery of Tours, an Irishman, Clement, became head of the palace school. The lasting relationship between Carolingian monarchs and the Irish continued long after Charlemagne’s death, under Louis the Pious, Lothair II, and Charles the Bald (who becomes the patron of the famous Irish scholar John Scotus Eriugena). Under Charlemagne and his descendents, the Frankish court became a center of interaction between scholars and poets from all over Europe. The infl uences of the Carolingian Renaissance continued to be felt well into the 10th, and even into the 12th century, as the cathedral and monastic schools continued to teach a curriculum based on the church fathers, the Latin authors, and the liberal arts. See also Frankish tribe; Irish monastic scholarship, golden age of; medieval Europe: educational system. Further reading: Colish, Marcia L. Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 400–1400. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004; Contreni, John J. “The Carolingian Renaissance: Education and Literacy Culture.” In Rosamond McKitterick, ed. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Reynolds, L. D. and N. G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974; Treadgold, Warren, ed. Renaissances Before the Renaissance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1984. K. Sarah-Jane Murray Celtic Christianity A variety of modern sectarian and special interest groups, from New Age cults to Irish nationalists to feminists to independent Christians, claim Celtic roots for their drive and inspiration. With so many competing claims it is diffi cult to clear away the partisan fervor from the historical realities surrounding Celtic spirituality and cultural identity. Among the giants in this tradition are the likes of Patrick (d. 461 c.e.), Brendan the Navigator (d. 577 c.e.), Columban (d. 615 c.e.), and Brigid (legendary). Among its gigantic achievements are the Book of Kells and a corpus of ballads and stories that make it one of the earliest European vernacular literatures. Celtic spirituality is an inexact term refl ecting the identity of an emigrating and outgoing people who adapted well wherever they wandered. It is usually applied to the native peoples of Ireland, Britain, and Brittany, bound by the language of Gaelic and (later) Hiberno-Latin. These people spread into ancient Gaul Celtic Christianity 75 (France), Spain, Italy, and even Galatia in present-day Turkey; their religious pilgrims were known in the ancient world for their visits throughout the lands of the Middle East. Eventually Christian preachers from Celtic lands were known for re-Christianizing and recivilizing Europe after the so-called Dark Ages, so it is no wonder that Celtic spirituality is claimed by many groups. No one is sure when Christianity reached western Celtic parts, but some Christian presence must have been established by 431 c.e. when Pope Celestine I sent a bishop to Ireland. Perhaps shortly thereafter the Western Latin Church commissioned the legendary Patrick for missionary work on the island. Thus, though Celtic spirituality shows some native distinctiveness, it was from the beginning associated with the ecclesial structure and faith of the Western Church and not just an indigenous and autonomous Christianity. In fact the earliest artifacts discovered show Irish Christianity to be found among the wealthy classes, who used typical icons and conventional symbols to show their spirituality. Most likely they owed their faith to the fervor of the Western Church to spread Christianity, even if most of their land never was under the Roman Empire. After the mid-400s c.e. when the Romans retreated from Britain to the European continent, contacts with the Western world diminished. The Celts were forced more wholly to reconnect with their native roots. This tendency was intensifi ed when the Saxons arose in Britain and threatened to take Celtic lands. Meanwhile the minority Christian population repudiated residual Western Church infl uences because of the worldliness and corruption of many of its institutions and personnel. The church did not respond to the alienation of the Celtic Christians until 605 c.e. when Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine of Canterbury to parley with the Irish. The pope recognized the need for a council, showing that Celtic Christianity was a force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, the talks completely broke down. Finally in 640 c.e. the Irish Church acceded to some of the pope’s requests. Celtic spirituality developed in a window of time from the mid-fi fth century to the mid-seventh century c.e. Its features included a different religious calendar (meaning that the Irish celebrated Easter on a different date), a different pastoral structure (meaning that the Irish had their own pastors and pastoral jurisdictions), and a different popular piety (meaning that native Irish myths became incorporated into Celtic Christianity). The pastoral system of the Irish recognized the authority of pious monks and their monasteries and did not pay attention to formal boundaries of parish and diocese as the Western Church normally did. Instead of bishops and theologies they esteemed abbots and superiors, both men and women, who proved that they could preserve cosmic order through their personal sanctity and mystical powers. The Celtic Church never rejected the offi ce of the pope and institutions of the Western Church, but it tended to downplay their role and effectiveness in true spirituality. Its pastoral system bears remarkable similarity to that of the Desert Fathers and Oriental Orthodox churches (of the Copts, Syrian Orthodox, and others). There may have been limited and organic exchanges based on Celtic wanderings and pilgrimages. The popular piety of the Irish shows the incorporation of mythic Celtic heroes into Christian stories. The story of St. Brigid, for example, founder of Kildare Abbey, may well be based on Brigid, daughter of the Celtic god Dagda, whose name graces so many places in Ireland. St. Brigid is not based on the traditional Mary, mother of Jesus, but on her namesake, who was a healer and creative force for the gods. Celts also had less a sense of the Latin notion of original sin. The world is not cursed with the fall of the human parents Adam and Eve, as the great Western Church thinker Augustine said. It is rather a place for humans to steward and show personal discipline so as to go to heaven. There is a heightened sense of the nearness of the divine to the created order. The ideal Christian in Celtic spirituality is the monk in the monastery who lives a life of self-control and prayer: The monk shows that his or her life can be disciplined and the world can be civilized and ordered. If nothing else, Celtic spirituality shows an alternative to the logic-driven and doctrinal approach of the West. It values independence of thought and the Power of personal sanctity. However, it is hardly nonstructured or spontaneous or wholly unique. It is not separate from the Christian religion, and probably is best viewed as a hybrid of Latin theology and native beliefs. By the 11th–12th centuries the special characteristics of Celtic spirituality were completely submerged in the Western Church, much as the Desert Father spirituality is a part of the Eastern Greek Church. Further reading: Davies, Oliver and Thomas O’Loughlin, eds. Celtic Christianity. Classics of Western Spirituality, New York: Paulist, 1999; Olsen, Ted. Christianity and the Celts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Mark F. Whitters 76 Celtic Christianity Chagatai Khanate Genghis Khan (c. 1167–1227) had four sons by his principal wife, Borte. The eldest son, Juji, and second son, Chagatai, were such fi erce rivals that Genghis decided to bypass both in favor of his third son, Ogotai Khan as his successor khaghan (Grand Khan), and all of his sons agreed with his choice. Genghis also assigned territories to each son to govern, although all would acknowledge the leadership of the khaghan and cooperate with him in expanding the Mongol Empire. Juji received land farthest from the paternal homeland—the western territories that would include Russia and eastern Europe; his followers were called the Golden Horde. Chagatai received west Turkestan, the Tarim Basin, and the western Tian Shan (T’ien Shan) region. Ogotai received Dzungaria and part of Central Asia, while the youngest son, Tului, received the Mongolian homeland. This arrangement was confi rmed just before Genghis Khan died in 1227. Two years later the Kuriltai (council of nobles) elected Ogotai the next khaghan. Chagatai’s allotment, which was enlarged later, also included the Ili River valley, Kashgaria, Turfan and Kucha in present-day northwestern China, and Transoxiana, including the towns of Bukhara and Samarkand. These disparate lands became known as the Chagatai Khanate. Except for the oasis towns most of the khanate was steppe land inhabited by various nomads, most of Turkic ethnicity. Chagatai was a warrior and also a staunch upholder of Mongol traditions. Genghis had appointed him guardian of the Mongolian law code called “Yasa” which he had sternly administered. Chagatai and his successors kept up a seminomadic lifestyle, changing from winter to summer camp as the seasons dictated. Whereas the Mongol realms under Kubilai Khan and his heirs in China, the Yuan dynasty (1279–1368), and the il-khanate of Hulagu Khan and his successors in Persia and the Middle East had fi xed boundaries, rich resources, large sedentary populations, and long established traditions of governance, the Chagatai Khanate had shifting boundaries, tribal populations with weak state institutions, and relatively sparse resources. It was hemmed in by other Mongol dominions ruled by branches of Genghis Khan’s descendants in three directions—the Yuan dynasty, the Il-Khanate, and the Golden Horde in Russia. The only direction for expansion was into Afghanistan and India. Beginning in the 1290s Chagatai Khanate forces took control of eastern Afghanistan from which they raided northwestern India. In 1303 an expedition of 120,000 men besieged Delhi for two months and devastated a wide area. Another force of 40,000 horsemen returned to India in 1304 but was defeated and 9,000 prisoners were trampled to death by elephants. A similar fate befell the men of the last attacking army in 1305–1306. Not able to expand outward the heirs of Chagatai were constantly embroiled in wars and rivalries of the other three branches of the family, and among themselves. Although the Chagatai Khanate was poor in resources, its central location along the Silk Road allowed it to collect abundant taxes and tolls. Frequent wars and predatory policy toward trade and sedentary people often resulted in the breakdown and ultimately decline in international trade by land routes. Major differences and incompatibilities divided the eastern and western halves of the khanate. The western part, originally part of the Khwarazm kingdom, was Islamized, urbanized, and more advanced than the eastern region, which was more pastoral, nomadic, and animistic. Lacking a cohesive government, each went its own way. Chagatai died in 1242 and was succeeded by his grandson Kara Hulagu. Interference by the khaghan and involvement by the Chagatai Khanid rulers in the dynastic struggle of other branches of the family resulted in many upheavals. Leaders of the Chagatai Khanate became involved when Mongke Khaghan died in 1259 and a succession struggle erupted between his brothers Kubilai and Arik Boke; they sided with the winner Kubilai. Later they supported Kaidu Khan, a grandson of Ogotai, who challenged Kubilai for the throne of the khaghan. The destructive wars continued until Kaidu’s death in 1301. Although Kubilai won against his rivals, the unity of the Mongol Empire was fractured forever, and even though the Chagatai rulers were not in contention for overall leadership, their central position in the line of communications between the different branches of the family played a signifi cant role in the breakdown of unity of the Mongol Empire. The frequent civil wars and changes of rulers (there were 30 khan up to 1230) fatally weakened the central authority at the expense of local leaders. As the Chagatai Khanate was disintegrating in 1369, there rose in Samarkand a Mongol-Turkic leader who claimed descent from Genghis Khan. His name was Timurlane (Tamerlane), meaning Timur the Lame. His military career that ended with his death in1403 would replicate that of his famous ancestor. In the 14th century Chagatain rulers converted to Islam, the religion of many of the Turkic peoples they ruled. The offi cial language of the khanate was changed from Mongolian to Chagatai Chagatai Khanate 77 Turkic. It continued to be used in the region they ruled until modern times. See also Mongke Khan. Further reading: Grousset, Rene. The Empire of the Steppes, A History of Central Asia. Trans. by Naomi Walford. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994; Franke, Herbert and Denis Twitchett eds. The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Prawdin, Michael. The Mongol Empire, Its Rise and Legacy. trans. Eden and Cedar Paul. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1994. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Champa kingdom According to Chinese texts, in 192 c.e., Champa was formed during the aftermath of the breakup of the Han dynasty of China. The Champa kingdom was situated along the coastal plains of present-day central and southern Vietnam. The Chams shared many biological traits with the Malays and Polynesians. After years of fi ghting with rival Chinese factions in Tonkin, the Chams came to be under Indian cultural infl uence. Elements of Indian culture formed a huge part of Cham culture, as a result. The Champa kingdom was divided into four regions with Hindu names—Amaravati, Vijaya, Kauthara, and Panduranga. The four, which were already powerful, were reunited under King Bhadravarman in 400. Located between India and China, the Chams were in a strategic position to conduct trade between West and East Asia. The kingdom played a key role along this trade route, which became known as the Silk Route of the Sea. At the height of their success, they became a prosperous seafaring power that actively participated in commerce and piracy along the coastline. Because of its strategic location, the Chams were constantly under threat of attack from their neighbors. Cham-Chinese rivalry persisted for centuries and featured prominently in Cham history. In order to stop repeated destructive Cham raids on their coasts, the Chinese invaded Champa territory in 446. Champa was made subservient to China but by the sixth century the Chams achieved independence from China rule. Champa trade and culture fl ourished during this era. Champa success was however disrupted by Javanese invasions in the eighth century, which they managed to stave off. In the ninth century under King Indravarman II, the Chams relocated their capital farther north in Amaravati. During this period, the Chams built beautiful temples and palaces, many of which survive today. By the 10th century the Champa kingdom faced another adversary from Hanoi in the form of the Dai Viet, who wanted the territories of Amaravati and a few decades later, Vijaya. Later the Cambodians launched attacks on their kingdom, along with the Vietnamese. Even though the Cham king Harivarman managed to fend off attacks from these two invading forces in 1145, the Khmers returned under a new more aggressive king and managed to bring Champa under his leadership. But two years later, a new Cham leader successfully defeated the Khmers. In 1177 the next Cham king even invaded the Cambodian capital of Angkor. This victorious period was extremely brief, as the Chams were once again subjected to Cambodian rule in 1190 until 1220. The Chams would never again experience a period of resurgence and instead suffered successive invasions by foreign forces. After 1220, Vietnamese kings, who were members of the Tran dynasty, attacked Champa. The Champa kingdom was further weakened by the Mongol invasion in 1284. By the end of the 15th 78 Champa kingdom An ancient Cham structure in central Vietnam, one of the remains of the Cham civilization that was conquered by foreign invaders. century very little of the Champa kingdom was left as their territories were being conquered by foreign invaders, who completed the conquest of Cham territory during the 17th century. See also Vijayanagara Empire. Further reading: Coedes, George. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1968; Maspero, Georges. The Kingdom of Champa. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1949; Phuong, Trân Ky. Vestiges of Champa Civilization. Hanoi: Thê Gioi Publishers, 2004. Nurfadzilah Yahaya Charlemagne (c. 742–814) king of the Franks and emperor of the West Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, was born the eldest son of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks (751–768), and his wife, Bertrada of Laon. Upon his father’s death the Frankish kingdom was divided between Charlemagne and his younger brother Carloman in 768. When Carloman died suddenly in 771, Charlemagne seized control of his brother’s lands and reunifi ed the Frankish realm. Charlemagne’s kingdom grew to an empire under his relentless and resourceful military campaigns. Beginning in 772 he initiated a campaign to subdue the Saxons, a task he would only complete in 804. Soon after becoming sole ruler of the Franks, he invaded Italy and crushed the Lombard Kingdom, taking the Crown of the Lombards for himself (773–774). An initial foray against the Muslims into Spain in 778 ended in disaster when Charlemagne’s rearguard was ambushed and destroyed at Roncesvalles, while returning home from this expedition. But by 811 Charlemagne had extended his sway south of the Pyrenees down to the Ebro River and had created the Spanish March to act as a buffer zone between the Moors in Spain and his own lands north of the Pyrenees. On his eastern front Charlemagne deposed his onetime ally the duke of Bavaria (787), and incorporated his territory into his own lands. This brought him into contact with the fi erce Slavic people known as the Avars, who held sizable lands in the areas of modern day Austria and Hungary. Charlemagne infl icted a massive defeat on these people in 796 and created another heavily defended march known as the Ostmark (Austria), to protect his eastern border against marauding Avars. In helping him overcome and rule such disparate foes and lands, Charlemagne was fortunate in having three capable and loyal sons. His son Charles (d. 811) ruled the northwest part of Charlemagne’s Frankish lands known as Neustria, while Pepin (d. 810) administered Italy, and Louis (d. 840) ruled over Aquitaine. The latter two in particular fought long, hard campaigns either with their father or on his behalf. The strength of Charlemagne’s empire depended in part upon his reputation and success as a warlord, together with the tight bonds of personal loyalty that existed between him and his chief administrators. In addition to his three sons who ruled as cadet kings, Charlemagne also relied heavily upon the margraves who ruled over the marks/marches that he created along volatile border areas. In less troublesome areas in the interior of his lands Charlemagne posted counts to keep the peace, administer imperial laws, and protect the realm. To ensure the loyalty of these and other top offi cials Charlemagne created the offi ce of the missi dominici, whose duty it was to ride circuit throughout the realm inquiring as to the honesty and effi ciency of his royal offi cials. Another reason for Charlemagne’s success was his approach to justice throughout his realm. Religion aside, he respected the traditions, tribal laws, and rights of the various Germanic peoples under his authority, and rather than replace tribal laws, he sought to codify them in writing. He did however issue a number of imperial laws called capitularies, which laid out regulations for his own royal offi cials or administrators or which touched upon religious issues. Historians have long acknowledged the important role that Christianity and the institutional church played in enabling Charlemagne to maintain a fi rm hold on both his throne and his empire. His conquest and eventual integration of Saxony into his empire are illustrative in this regard. Charlemagne relied upon a combination of military offensives against the Saxons and the missionary activities of Benedictine monks fi nally to pacify this belligerent tribe. In 782 he issued a series of laws forbidding the practice of pagan religion among the Saxons, with harsh penalties for those caught transgressing. The overall effect of these measures was slowly to saturate Saxon tribal culture with the religion and culture that Charlemagne endorsed. Charlemagne also engaged in a vigorous attempt to improve the level of morality and education among the clergy throughout his realm. To this end he utilized the talents of Alcuin of York (735–804), who, beginning in 781, undertook the arduous process of bringing discipline to the monastic houses throughout the empire and introducing the classical Roman program of the liberal arts as the educational curriculum used throughout the Carolingian monastic schools. For 15 years Alcuin himself oversaw a school at Charlemagne’s palace at Aachen. The results of this educational program were impressive Charlemagne 79 and produced a fl ourishing of culture and learning that has been termed the Carolingian Renaissance. A number of Carolingian Benedictine monasteries became vibrant centers of learning, such as Fulda, St. Gall, and Reichenau. Monks at these institutions assiduously set about learning classical Latin grammar and rhetoric and in the process copied and preserved for posterity numerous works from classical Rome. Scholarship and literature fl ourished in this era, as is evident from such works as Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards and Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne. On Christmas Day in the year 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Roman emperor (Imperator Romanorum). Historians have long quarreled over the signifi cance of the coronation, and even whether Charlemagne himself approved. The Roman Empire at the time of Charlemagne’s coronation referred to the Greek or Byzantine Empire, which was under the control of the empress Irene (797–802). Through his actions the pope may well have been seeking to curry favor with Charlemagne and ensure his aid in maintaining the pope’s temporal control over recently annexed lands in Italy. Or, absent a male ruler on the Byzantine throne, he may actually have thought he was creating a legitimate emperor who could unite the Carolingian territories in the west with the Byzantine lands in the east. If so, he seriously miscalculated, for initial overtures between Charlemagne’s court and that of the empress Irene created an uproar among the people of the Byzantine Empire. Charlemagne himself actually disliked the title of emperor, and it certainly added nothing to his power or ability to rule over his own lands. At the same time, the fact that the pope felt emboldened enough to proclaim this Germanic king a Roman emperor provides clear evidence of the spectacular political, military, religious, and cultural achievements Charlemagne realized during his rule over western Europe. In 813 Charlemagne designated his son Louis I as coemperor and his successor and crowned him at Aachen. See also Carolingian dynasty; Holy Roman Empire. Further reading: Barbero, Alessandro. Charlemagne: Father of a Continent. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004; Boussard, Jacques. The Civilization of Charlemagne. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968; Einhard. The Life of Charlemagne. Trans. by S. E. Turner. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960; Heer, Frederich. Charlemagne and His World. New York: Macmillan, 1975; Winston, Richard. Charlemagne, From the Hammer to the Cross. London: Constable, 1956. Ronald K. Delph Chaucer, Geoffrey (c. 1340–1400) English author Geoffrey Chaucer was the son of John Chaucer, a prosperous wine merchant, and Agnes de Copton. Around 1355 his fairly wealthy parents secured a position for the young Geoffrey as a page in a household of royal rank, that of Prince Lionel, the earl of Ulster, the future duke of Clarence and son of Edward III. This provided a suitable environment to cultivate their son’s talents as he was exposed to the world of aristocracy and developed an appreciation for manners of the court. Chaucer was known for his keen observation of his surroundings. In such a setting, he would have also acquired knowledge of French and Latin, and he made his fi rst acquaintance with his future patron, John of Gaunt. After serving as a page Chaucer joined military service and fought in France. In 1360 he was captured but was released upon payment of ransom by Edward III. From 1374 to 1386 Chaucer was a customs controller in the port of London. It was an important post as the king’s revenue came mainly from customs duties. Later he became a clerk of the King’s Works. In 1367 he became a yeoman in the king’s household and two years later was promoted to esquire. Chaucer married Philippa Roet in 1366, the sister of the mistress and future wife of his patron, John of Gaunt. Philippa Roet served the queen as a lady-in-waiting. Their marriage lasted until her death in 1387. In his work for the king, Chaucer engaged in diplomatic missions to France, Italy, and Spain—centers of learning and literary production far more renowned than London at the time. It was in Italy that he met Giovanni Boccaccio, the Italian novelist, whose writings he admired. Not surprisingly, continental European infl uences are found in his works. Early in his career Chaucer displayed a tendency to adopt the French style. He was heavily infl uenced by French works such as the Roman de la Rose, an allegory about love written in eight-syllable couplets by two poets—Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun. In 1369 Chaucer wrote The Book of the Duchess, likely for John of Gaunt’s fi rst wife, Blanche, who died in the same year. While keeping the French infl uence, Chaucer began to be infl uenced by Italian authors such as Dante Alighieri and Boccaccio. One of his works, Troilus and Criseyde, was in fact based on Boccaccio’s Filostrato. Boccaccio provides the basis for four of Chaucer’s characters in his most famous work The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer died on October 25, 1400. His body was buried in Westminster Abbey and was later moved to Poets’ Corner at the east aisle of the south transept. 80 Chaucer, Geoffrey The 14th century was a golden period when the literary arts fl ourished in England. During this era known as the Middle Ages, literature in the English language enjoyed an unprecedented popularity. The English language became a source of pride for the English people. The new status accorded to the language was due in no small part to Chaucer’s choice of the English language as the worthy medium of his own artistic expression. The intellectual milieu during the Middle Ages was very much characterized by philosophical concerns provided by Christianity. Christian allegory thus became a major feature of medieval literature. Allegory is polysemous, in that multiple levels of meaning can be discerned. Sets of meanings are also intricately connected with other sets of meanings, creating a text that is signifi cantly rich. All the meanings relate to a central theme, which is repeatedly alluded to in the text. Chaucer succeeded in marrying philosophical ruminations in a creative manner. Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales between 1387 and 1400 during the aftermath of the Black Death and the Peasants’ Revolt. It is a collection of 24 tales recounted by different characters who are pilgrims. He adopts a powerful satirical style in writing The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer draws upon contemporary persons commonly found in medieval society, so his audience would be familiar with them. Chaucer’s literary style was revolutionary in that he incorporated local dialects in his writing, such as in the “Miller’s Tale,” part of The Canterbury Tales. In the “Knight’s Tale,” the miller, who speaks in a drunken style, actually interrupts the protagonist. As a complex collection of stories of various characters from all social strata, male and female, The Canterbury Tales forms a valuable view of the workings of society during this volatile period in history. Further reading: Coghill, Nevill. Poet Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949; Pearsall, David. The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992; Richardson, Catherine. Chaucer: A Beginner’s Guide. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001; William, David. Canterbury Tales, A Literary Pilgrimage. New York: Twayne, 1949. Nurfadzilah Yahaya


ChenlaEdit

Two successive kingdoms with strong Indian infl uence emerged during the pre-Angkorean centuries of Khmer history. These were the Funan, from the second to sixth centuries, and Kambuja (Chenla, Zhenla in Chinese) from the sixth to the eighth centuries. A vassal state of Funan, Chenla emerged as an independent state in the middle of the sixth century. A sea route developed between India and China by this time. The shift from the coastal trade route coincided with the appearance of conquerors from the mid-Mekong area, the brothers Bhavavarman (r. 550–600) and Mahendravarman (r. 600–611). They focused on the rice-growing areas of the Mekong basin, rather than maritime trade. The new kingdom, called Kambuja, traced its origin from the sage Kambu Svayambhuva and the daughter of Nagas, Mera According to the Chinese chronicle the History of Sui, Chenla was a feudatory state of Funan, covering roughly northern Cambodia and southern Laos of modern times. Its capital was at Lingaparvata with a Hindu temple dedicated to the god Bhadresvara. Chenla became a separate state after seceding from Funan in 550 with the accession of Bhadravarman I as the fi rst ruler of the newly independent kingdom. He was the grandson of Funanese ruler Rudravarman (r. 514–539) and had married a Chenla princess named Lakshmi, who was heir apparent to the throne. Bhadravarman became the independent king of Chenla in 550, when the ruler died. In his long reign, Chenla was engaged in warfare, and Chitrasena was in charge of the army. The kingdom of Chenla covered the whole of Cambodia, southern Thailand, Laos, and the Mekong Delta region. Bhadravarman’s brother Chitrasena, with the title of Mahendravarman, succeeded him and ruled for 11 years. He was a brave king and conqueror. The reign of his son Isanvarman I (r. 611–635) was marked by extension of the kingdom westward, and establishment of a new capital, Isanpura at Sambor Prei Kuk (the Kompong Thom province of modern Cambodia), in 613. Like his father, he followed a policy of friendship toward the Champa kingdom and married a Champa princess. Bhavavarman II was the next ruler (r. 635–650), who was succeeded by Jayavarman (650–690). He consolidated the Chenla kingdom. After his death, Queen Jayadevi controlled the affairs of the state. Imminent civil war led to the disintegration of the Chenla kingdom. Factional disputes in the court resulted in the splitting of the kingdom in 706 into Land Chenla (Upper Chenla) and Water Chenla (Lower Chenla). Upper Chenla, with its capital in the Champassak province of modern Laos, was a somewhat centralized state with 30 provincial headquarters operating as administrative centers. It also sent embassies to China. Lower Chenla, occupying the former Funan kingdom along the Mekong Delta and the coast, had a turbulent existence with constant pirate raids from Java. The minor Chenla 81 Khmer states like Aninditapura and Sambhupura were locked in rivalry over the control of Lower Chenla. Pressure also mounted against Chenla by the Sailendra kings of Java. The last of the rulers was killed in 790 and it became a vassal state of the Sailendras. A prince from Sambhpura, who was in Java, took the reins as a puppet ruler. But Jayavarman II asserted his independence in 802, becoming the founder of great Angkorean empire that lasted until the early 15th century. The Cambodian civilization in Chenla, like that of the Funan and Angkor periods, witnessed a good deal of Indian infl uence. Indian elements were mixed with indigenous myths of the Moon and serpent. Building a royal lingas (phallus symbol of Shiva) on mountains was a blending of the autochthonous mountain cult with Hindu beliefs. Shiva in his linga form was connected with devaraja cult, which was used by Jayvarman II afterward to proclaim his sovereignty from Java. The Chenla kings were deifi ed. Lord Shiva was worshipped under different names such as Bhadresvara, Sambhu, Girisa, and Tribhubanesvara. Inscriptions from Cambodia attest to the prevalence of Sanskrit. Rhetorical and literary conventions were well known to writers of epigraphs in Chenla. They were also well acquainted with Indian epics, kavyas and puranas. The inscriptions refer to the Vedas, Vedantas, and Smritis. Many Sanskrit words were absorbed into old Khmer, relating to geographical names, the names of divinities and persons, administrative terms, and terms relating to the calendar and numbers. Another Indian custom persisted in the marrying princesses to brahmans (Hindu priests). The brahmans played an important role in the religious life of the people. The chief priest or purohita had a powerful infl uence on the royalty. This sacerdotal offi ce passed from uncle to nephew in the maternal line, which was an example of an indigenous matrilineal social system. Kings sought to ally themselves to a particular priestly family by matrimonial alliance. Buddhism was also prevalent in Chenla. The Mahayana faith came to Cambodia from Java as well as India. Buddhist statues are found at the time of Bhavavarman II. Infl uences from India, the megalithic culture of Southeast Asia, China, and neighboring regions in Southeast Asia enriched the culture of Chenla. Further reading: Ang, Choulen, et al. Angkor: Past, Present and Future. Apsara: Phnom Penh, 1996; Briggs, Lawrence P. The Ancient Khmer Empire. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1951; Chandler, David. A History of Cambodia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992; Hall, D. G. E. A History of South-East Asia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1968; Higham, Charles. The Civilization of Angkor. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001; Mishra, Patit Paban. Cultural Rapprochement between India and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: NBO, 2005; Sardesai, D. R. Southeast Asia: Past and Present. New Delhi, Vikas Publishing House, 1981; Sharma, Sanjeev. Cambodia: An Historical Overview. Honolulu, HI: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1994. Patit Paban Mishra Chinese poetry, golden age of The three centuries of the Tang (T’ang) dynasty (618–909) represent the golden age of Chinese poetry. Chinese poetry reached its pinnacle during the reign of Minghuang (r. 712–756, also known as Xuanzong (Hsuan-tsung). About 3,000 poets’s names have survived from the Tang dynasty; many of those works are extant. The Tang poets’ brilliance and inspiration have never been surpassed and have been the model for poets of later eras to emulate. During the long reigns of Empress Wu and Minghuang culture fl ourished and upper class life was cosmopolitan. Confucian philosophy provided moral grounding and objectivity, while Daoism (Taoism) favored introspection, and Buddhism brought otherworldliness to the era. Most Chinese poems were short, with romantic love, a frequent theme of European poetry, rarely a subject. Friendship between men is a dominant theme and the emotional trauma of parting between friends is the inspiration of many poems. This is hardly surprising because most poets were educated men from among whom offi cials were drawn, and offi cials were regularly rotated throughout the empire. War as a subject of poems did not deal with heroism or conquest, but focused on the desolation and sorrows that accompanied invasions and losses. Nature is also often the subject of poetic inspiration. Among the galaxy of Tang poets this essay will feature three of the greatest: Li Bo (Li Po), also known as Li Taibo (Li T’ai-po), 701–762; Du Fu (Tu Fu), 712–770; and Bo Juyi (Po Chu-i) 772–846. Li Bo was born in Sichuan (Szechwan) Province in southwestern China. A man of great vitality and a lover of nature, he traveled widely, studied Daoism, and characterized himself as an “an immortal banished from heaven.” However, Li was best known as a heroic drinker and versifi ed while sober and drunk. He is 82 Chinese poetry, golden age of believed to have written 20,000 poems; 1,800 among them have survived and are still widely memorized. Li briefl y enjoyed court favor and lived in the Tang capital Chang’an (Ch’ang-an) for three years under the emperor’s patronage. However he fell out of favor when a poem he wrote in praise of Minghuang’s favorite, Lady Yang, was interpreted to be an insult. The story of his death, perhaps untrue, had him leaning out of a boat to embrace the Moon while at an outing with friends on a lake and drowning. The following short poem has Li celebrating the Moon and wine: Drinking Alone in Moonlight Among the fl owers, with a jug of wine, I drink all alone—no one to share. Raising my cup, I welcome the moon, And my shadow joins us, making a threesome…. As I sing the moon seems to sway back and forth; As I dance my shadow goes fl opping about. As long as I’m sober we’ll enjoy one another, And when I get drunk, we’ll go our own ways: Forever committed to carefree play, We’ll all meet again in the Milky Way! Du Fu was more serious than Li Bo and was considered a scholar’s poet. He served the government but never attained major posts. Du and his family suffered terribly during the An Lushan (An Lu-Shan) Rebellion. The following is by Du describing the black goshawk, a forest hunting bird: A black goshawk is not to be found staying among humankind; She passed over the seas, I suspect, coming from the North Pole; Her straightened quills beat the wind as she crossed over the purple borderland, At winter’s onset she stayed some nights at the Solar Terrace. The foresters’ nets were all out for her—but they applied their nets in vain; The geese of spring which go back with her surely see her with misgivings. A myriad miles in the cold void—it takes just a single day; But these golden eyeballs and these jade talons are of no usual stock. Bo Juyi was a brilliant student, passing the doctoral exams at age 18, and he enjoyed a successful offi cial career. He was noted for the simplicity of language in his short poems. Reputedly he would read a new piece to an old peasant woman and would discard any that she could not understand. But he was most famous for a long poem titled “The Everlasting Sorrow,” which recounted Minghuang’s love for Lady Yang, their fl ight from Chang’an before An Lushan’s rebel army, her execution by Minghuang’s mutinous soldiers, and his sorrow and longing for her. The following poem celebrated Bo’s passing the doctoral examination: After Passing the Examination For ten years I never left my books; I went up . . . and won unmerited praise. My high place I do not much prize; The joy of my parents will make me proud. Fellow students, six or seven men, See me off as I leave the City gate. My covered coach is ready to drive away; Flutes and strings blend their parting tune. Hopes achieved dull the pains of parting; Fumes of wine shorten the long road…. Shod with wings is the horse of him who rides On a Spring day the road that leads to home. Poetry is very diffi cult to appreciate in translation because translations lose the form of the poem itself even when they successfully convey its spirit. But for those acquainted with the beauty of written Chinese the works of great Tang poets have never been surpassed. Further reading: Waley, Arthur. The Life and Times of Po Chu-i. New York: MacMillan Co., 1951; Waley, Arthur. The Poetry and Career of Li Po. New York: MacMillan Co., 1958. Hung, William. Tu Fu, China’s Greatest Poet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952; Twitchett, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of China, Volume III, Sui and T’ang China, 589–906. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur chivalry During the Middle Ages chivalry (derived from Latin caballus, “nag,” and closely related to French chevalier, Spanish caballero, and English cavalier) denoted the class of knighthood and the ideals associated with it. The noble knight was distinguished from the peasant infantryman by several attributes: his horse, weapons chivalry 83 (sword and lance), banner, and attendants. Medieval chivalry became closely associated with the church and the Crusades. Whereas the early church believed Christianity and the profession of arms to be incompatible, medieval church leaders encouraged the development of a new, Christian order of knighthood. Bernard of Clairvaux’s treatise In Praise of the New Knighthood (c. 1128–31) commends the Knights Templar, a crusading order of soldiers who drew their strength in battle from their fervent faith. Christian knights continued to swear allegiance to a liege-lord but also received a blessing from the church. This was known as the Benedictio novi militis (benediction for new soldiers). Before participating in the ritual a candidate typically confessed his sins, fasted, and prayed during a night-long vigil. His sword was placed on the altar and blessed. Kneeling and dressed in white, he swore the oath of chivalry and at the same time renewed his baptismal vow. Echoes of St. Bernard’s exhortation to fi ght and live for Christ made their way into 12th century literature, as evidenced by Chrétien de Troyes’s last Arthurian romance, The Quest for the Grail (Perceval) (c. 1190). Chivalry was not only associated, however, with religion and the crusades. Certain 12th century vernacular poets—like Chrétien de Troyes and Marie de France— praised the virtues and courtesy of knightly society, thereby contributing to the rise of courtly romance, a genre that exalts the refi ned or pure love (fi n’ amors) between a knight and his lady. The audiences of these early vernacular works were largely feminine, and throughout the stories, women play an important role. This contrasts sharply with the relative absence of female characters from the French chansons de geste (such as the Song of Roland) and Germanic epics (such as Beowulf). The cult of fi n’ amors (or courtly love, as the 19th-century philologist Gaston Paris named it) originated in the 11th century with the lyric poetry of the troubadours and trouvères. (Troubadours wrote in the Provençal langue d’oc of southern France; trouvères composed their works in the langue d’oil of the north.) These poets were typically noblemen, like William IX of Aquitaine, who is often described as the fi rst troubadour. The works of several female troubadours—or trobairitz—have also survived (such as the countess of Dia). Under the infl uence of powerful patrons of the arts—such as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine (granddaughter of William IX) and her daughter, Marie, countess of Champagne—the cult of courtly love spread throughout medieval Europe. At the end of the 12th century Andreas Capellanus, writing for the countess Marie, composed a Latin treatise commonly referred to as the Art of Courtly Love (c. 1184–86). Andreas draws upon the writings of Ovid and the conventions of Provencal poetry in order to outline the proper behavior and attitudes of courtly lovers. According to Andreas, love is an “inborn suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex,” which ennobles the lover’s character and drives him to great accomplishments. Chrétien de Troyes’s Knight of the Cart (c. 1180)—also dedicated to Marie of Champagne—provides a good case in point: Lancelot accomplishes great feats because his faithful (yet adulterous) love for Guinevere pushes him to surpass all other knights at King Arthur’s court. Courtly love relationships existed mainly outside marriage. Andreas insists that the man must initiate the love affair by declaring his devotion. He fully submits to the will of the lady, who has the power to accept or to deny her suitor. In either case, the knight will continue to serve her. The courtly love relationship thus mirrors the feudal bond between the knight and his liege-lord. At the end of his book, Andreas rejects love. For this reason, some scholars believe that his whole work constitutes a parody of courtly love and must not be taken seriously. Indeed later authors, like Alain Chartier in the Belle dame sans merci, do not hesitate to expose the excesses associated with courtly love, such as the unfair treatment of men by merciless and fi ckle women. Much vernacular literature of the 13th and 14th centuries also celebrates the paradigms of courtly love. The Romance of the Rose by Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun describes the efforts of the narrator to attain the love of “she who is worthy to be called Rose.” Geoffrey Chaucer (who translated the Romance of the Rose) makes the courtly love tradition the central theme of his Troilus and Criseyde. “The Knight’s Tale” (from the Canterbury Tales) warns of the dangers of falling prey to the “amor de lonh.” Two male cousins, Arcite and Palamon, fall in love with a beautiful young woman they have spied from afar. This infatuation for the fair Emelye ultimately leads to the death of Arcite. Through the “Knight’s Tale,” Chaucer mocks the place of the lady within the courtly relationship: Emelye is reduced to a passive bystander, forced to marry against her will. Although she is idealized and even worshipped by Arcite and Palamon, she has no control over her own destiny. Chaucer’s false idolatry provides a sharp contrast to Dante Alighieri’s love for Beatrice, whom he woos in La Vita Nuova, and whose grace and beauty eventually 84 chivalry lead him to the contemplation of God in the third book of the Divine Comedy. For Dante, who draws on St. Bernard’s treatise On Loving God, the courtly relationship guides the lover not only to accomplish great feats but also to grow close to God through his chaste and pure love for a lady. (Meanwhile lustful lovers who do not repent of their sins—like Paolo and Francesca—are condemned to eternal suffering in the Inferno.) The infl uence of medieval chivalry and courtly love on western Europe was lasting and profound. In the 16th-century Book of the Courtier, Baldassare Castiglione models his advice for male and female courtiers in Renaissance Italy on knightly etiquette. Famous poets like Petrarch, Ronsard, Donne, and Shakespeare continued to woo ladies in the fashion of the troubadours for centuries. In the 19th century Walter Scott and Tennyson contributed to a veritable rebirth of chivalric— and highly romanticized—literature; throughout the 20th century, stories of medieval knights fi ghting for the love of their ladies (such as White’s Once and Future King) fl ourished. See also Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Capellanus, Andreas. The Art of Courtly Love. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990; Chickering, H., and T. H. Seiler, eds. The Study of Chivalry: Resources and Approaches. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1988; Gaunt, Simon, and Sarah Kay, eds. The Troubadours: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Ferrante, J. M., and G. D. Economou, eds. In Pursuit of Perfection: Courtly Love in Medieval Literature. Port Washington, WI: Kennikat Press, 1975; Keen, M. Chivalry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984; Lewis, C. S. The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958; Smith, N. B., and J. T. Snow, eds. The Expansion and Transformation of Courtly Literature. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1980; Porter, Pamela. Courtly Love in Medieval Manuscripts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. K. Sarah-Jane Murray and Jennifer Boulanger Chola kingdom The Chola kingdom was a medieval Indian state, which saw most of southern India being brought under a united government for the fi rst time. At its greatest extent, Chola covered not just the south of India but also Sri Lanka, peninsular Malaya, western Borneo, and other islands of archipelago Southeast Asia. The Chola used the Tamil language and religious and cultural concepts. The origins of the state are unclear, although the Chola King Raja Raja I invaded the southern Deccan region in 993 in a series of campaigns that lasted for nearly 30 years. This contributed to the downfall of the Calukya dynasty and provided opportunities for Chola and Deccan rulers to contest former Calukya territory. In 1070 Chola King Rajendra II united the existing holdings into a unitary state, which was then free to expand its holdings across the trade routes that stretched across the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia. The next centuries were something of a golden age for southern India, with religious and artistic expression reaching high levels of achievement. Although caste-based societies such as that of the Chola are often thought of as lacking social mobility and the ability to innovate, this was not the case. Instead, creation of new crafts and skills enabled the reordering of society and the classes within it to a considerable extent. The fact that so many different sets of people from many different homelands were a part of the Chola kingdom contributed to this mobility. The social mobility extended to women as well as men and a number of new occupations and ranks were made available to them. Specifi c areas of achievement included literature, bronze statuary and works, and architecture, particularly in terms of temple architecture. The temple of Shiva at Thanjavur, which was completed in 1009, is regarded as a noted masterpiece demonstrating characteristic styles of southern India. The pantheon of Hindu gods provided numerous opportunities for artistic creativity, and the combination of creativity Chola kingdom 85 The Sri Brahdeeswarar Temple was built by the great Chola king Raja Raja I in the 10th century. and incoming infl uences helped to create a number of exquisite creations. Inscriptions found on Southeast Asian islands show the progress of Chola domination across the ocean. Raja Raja and Rajendra both persecuted a fi erce campaign against the Srivijaya Kingdom and ultimately destroyed it. This allowed Chola to take over a monopoly of trade in the region and to gain greater access to Chinese markets and the burgeoning city-states of mainland Southeast Asia. However, as in the case of the Indian homeland, evidence concerning the actual nature of who governed where and when is unclear. Inscriptions make grandiose claims, which in some cases are not substantiated. The end of the Chola empire is variously given as either in the 12th or 13th century, most often in 1279. The arrival of Mongol Yuan troops in Southeast Asia radically changed the balance of power in the region while, in India, the rise of Hosalya and Pandya polities ultimately eroded the economic basis of the Chola empire and it was subsumed by successors. See also Tamil culture; Yuan dynasty (1279–1368). Further reading: Orr, Leslie C. Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; Ramaswamy, Vijaya. “Vishwakarma Craftsmen in Early Medieval Peninsular India.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (v.47/4, 2004); Swanimathan, S. Early Cholas: History, Art and Culture. Delhi: Sharada Publishing House, 1998. John Walsh Christian states of Spain When the Moors from Morocco invaded Spain in 711, they easily managed to capture most of the Iberian Peninsula with the exception of the area around the Asturian Mountains in the north. When they did get around to attacking that region in 718, the Christians defeated the Moors at the Battle of Covadonga, near Asturias. The Moors decided to leave that part of Spain unconquered, marking what became the fi rst battle in what the Spanish called the “Reconquista,” or Reconquest of Spain for Christendom. Over the next centuries several Christian kingdoms emerged in Spain, notably Asturias, León, Castile, Aragon, and Navarre. These gradually expanded and eventually managed to defeat the Moors using their alliances. They ejected them from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, when Isabella, heir to the throne of Castile, and Ferdinand II, king of Aragon, captured Granada, the last Muslim possession on the peninsula. KINGDOM OF ASTURIAS The kingdom of Asturias was, in origin, a Visigoth kingdom of Spain created by Pelayo (Pelagius), a grandson of King Chindaswinth, who had been defeated by the Moors. Pelayo established his capital at Cangas de Onis, securing his independence with a victory at the Battle of Covadonga. The Moors, rather than sending more soldiers into Asturias, headed into France and in 732 were defeated at the Battle of Tours. For the next century the Moors were on the defensive and this allowed Pelayo and his successors to rebuild their strength. Pelayo’s son, Favila, became king on his father’s death in 737 but died two years later in a boar hunt. He had no son so his brother-in-law was proclaimed King Alfonso I. He enlarged the kingdom of Asturias by annexing Galicia in the west, and León in the south. He also extended his lands in the east to the borders of Navarre. When Alfonso died, his cruel son Fruela I came to the throne. One of Fruela’s fi rst acts was to kill his own brother, Bimarano, who he thought wanted the throne. After reigning for 11 years, Fruela was murdered on January 14, 768, and was succeeded by his cousin Aurelius (son of Alfonso’s brother Fruela). He was, in turn, succeeded by Silo, a nephew, who had married Alfonso I’s daughter. Aurelius had managed to prevent the Moors from attacking by paying them tribute, and all that is known about Silo is that he moved the kingdom’s capital from Cangas de Onis to Pravia. This period coincided with Charlemagne’s invasion of Spain, and his capture of Barcelona. Silo’s successor, Mauregato, was an illegitimate son of Alfonso I (his mother allegedly being a slave) (r. 783– 788) and was alleged to have offered 100 beautiful maidens annually as tribute to the Moors. The next king, Bermudo I, a brother of Aurelius, had been ordained deacon and reluctantly accepted the position as king, abdicating three years later and allowing Alfonso II “The Chaste,” a son of Fruela I, to become king. Initially people were worried that Alfonso might try to avenge the murder of his father—instead he ruled for 51 years. He had been married to Berta, said to have been a daughter of Pepin, king of the Frankish tribe, but they had no children as he had taken a vow of celibacy. During his long reign he stabilized the country’s political system amd attacked the Moors, defeating them near the town of Oviedo, which they had recently sacked. Alfonso II was so impressed by the beauty of Oviedo that he moved his court there and proclaimed 86 Christian states of Spain it his capital. It was to remain capital of the kingdom of Asturias until 910, when León became the new capital. Work began on the construction of the Oviedo Cathedral, where Alfonso II was eventually buried. Alfonso’s main achievement was that he conquered territory from the Moors, moving the reach of his Christian kingdom into the edges of central Spain. The Moorish king Abd ar-Rahman II (r. 822–852) was, however, able to check the advances of Alfonso, drive back the Franks, and stop a rebellion by Christians and Jews in Toledo. The next king of Asturias was Ramiro I, a son of Bermudo I. He began his reign by capturing several other claimants to the throne, blinding them, and then confi ning them to monasteries. As a warrior he managed to defeat a Norman invasion after the Normans had landed at Corunna, and also fought several battles against the Moors. His son, Ordon~o I, became the next king and was the fi rst to be known as king of Asturias and of León. Ordono extended the kingdom to Salamanca and was succeeded by his son Alfonso III “The Great.” Alfonso III reigned for 44 years (866–910) and during that time consolidated the kingdom by overhauling the bureaucracy and, then fought the Moors. He managed to enlarge his lands to cover the whole of Asturias, Biscay, Galicia, and the northern part of modern-day Portugal. The southern boundary of his kingdom was along the Duero (Douro) River. KINGDOM OF LEÓN Alfonso had three feuding sons who plotted against each other and then against their father. To try to placate them all, Alfonso divided his kingdom into three parts. Garcia became king of León, Ordon~o became king of Galicia, and Fruela became king of Oviedo (ruling Asturias). This division was short-lived as wars among the young men resulted in all the lands eventually coming together under one ruler. García only reigned for four years before he died, without any children. Ordono II ruled in Galicia before dying 14 years later and eventually Fruela II “The Cruel,” Alfonso III’s fourth son, who had outlived the others, reunited the kingdom in 924. However he died of leprosy in the following year, with Ordono II’s son’s becoming King Alfonso IV. He did not want to rule and abdicated in order to spend the rest of his life as a monk. This allowed Alfonso IV’s brother to become King Ramiro II. Soon after this, Alfonso tried to regain the throne, only to be taken by his brother, blinded, and left at the Monastery of St. Julian, where he died soon afterward. Ramiro II was succeeded by his elder son, Ordon~o III, and then by a younger son, Sancho I “The Fat.” There were two years when Ordono IV “The Wicked,” a son of Alfonso IV, was king, but then Sancho I’s only son became King Ramiro III. He was fi ve when he became king and the Normans decided to attack again, destroying many coastal towns. Eventually he abdicated and allowed his cousin, Bermudo II, son of Ordon~o III, to become king. It was during the reign of Bermudo II that the Moors attacked and managed to get as far as León. When Bermudo II died in 999, his son Alfonso V was only fi ve, and Don Melindo González, count of Galicia, became regent. In his 20s Alfonso V led his armies into battle against the Moors, recaptured much of León, but was killed in battle with the Moors at Viseu in Portugal, on May 5, 1028. His only son, Bermudo III, was 13 and during his nine year reign faced more threats from the neighboring Christian kingdom of Castile. In 1037 he was killed at the Battle of the River Carrion fi ghting King Ferdinand I of Castile, and the kingdom of León, as it was then known, was absorbed into Castile. KINGDOM OF CASTILE AND GRANADA The kingdom of Castile began as a dependency of León and was controlled by counts. However in 1035 Ferdinand I “The Great” was proclaimed king of Castile and two years later after defeating and killing Bermudo III, became king of Castile and León, ruling for the next 27 years. These new kings saw themselves as lineal descendants of the heritage of Asturias, even if not by blood. When Ferdinand I died he divided his lands among his children and Sancho received Castile, Alfonso received León and Asturias, García was given Galicia and northern Portugal, his daughter Urraca was given Zamora, and Elvira was given Toro. This was meant to end squabbling by them but only ended up with much fi ghting. At this time, a nobleman, Rodrigo Díaz de Bibar, emerged as the great Spanish hero El Cid. Interestingly he later tried to set up his own kingdom of Valencia, which ended in his death. Eventually Alfonso ruled all the lands as Alfonso VI “The Brave,” king of Castile. Alfonso VI launched a number of attacks on the Moors but most of these were overshadowed by the efforts of El Cid. In 1085 the Christians were able to capture the city of Toledo, and Alfonso reigned until his death in June 1109 at the age of 70. He had fi ve or six wives. His daughter Urraca succeeded Alfonso VI. She married fi rst Raymond, count of Burgundy, and later Alfonso I, king of Aragon. Her successor was Alfonso VII (r. 1126–1157), titling himself as “Emperor of All Spain.” When he died his lands were divided between his eldest son, Sancho III “the Desired,” who was given Castile; and his second son, Ferdinand II, who was given León. Christian states of Spain 87 Sancho III only reigned for a year and his only surviving son became Alfonso VIII, r. 1158–1214. In 1212 he defeated the Moors at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, giving Castile control over central Spain. When he died, Henry I, his youngest but only surviving son, succeeded him. He died and was succeeded as king of Castile by his nephew Ferdinand III. Meanwhile in León, Ferdinand II had reigned for 31 years, and when he died in 1188, his brother, Alfonso IX, succeeded him. Alfonso IX’s fi rst wife Teresa, from whom he was divorced, was later canonized as Saint Teresa in 1705. His eldest surviving son with his second wife was Ferdinand, who had already become king of Castile. When Alfonso IX died in 1230, the kingdoms of Castile and León were reunited. Ferdinand III embarked on a series of wars against the Moors, managing to capture the cities of Córdoba (1236), Jaen (1246), and Seville (1248). With the capture of Seville, the “Reconquista” was almost complete—the Moors held only the city of Granada. The forces of Ferdinand were unable to take that city, although the emir of Granada did acknowledge his overlordship. ferdinand III also founded the University of Salamanca, died on May 30, 1252, and was buried in Seville Cathedral. In 1671 Pope Clement X canonized him, and he became St. Ferdinand (San Fernando). Ferdinand’s son, Alfonso X, had two titles, “The Wise,” and “The Astrologer.” During his reign he codifi ed the laws, wrote poems, and had a large number of scholars produce a great chronicle of Spanish history. One of his advisers, Jehuda ben Moses Cohen, wrote that the king was someone “in whom God and placed intelligence, and understanding and knowledge above all princes of his time.” He was also elected as King of the Romans in 1257, renouncing the title of Holy Roman Emperor in 1275. However Alfonso X was faced with a dynastic succession crisis. His eldest son, Ferdinand de la Cerda, died in 1275, leaving two young sons, Alfonso X did not want a young boy on the throne so nominated as his successor his second son, Sancho. Ferdinand’s wife championed the cause of her two boys, and Alfonso X’s wife sided with her. The confl ict continued when the French—Ferdinand’s wife was a French princess—declared war on Sancho, who had the support of the Spanish parliament, the Cortes. War seemed inevitable, but when news arrived that Sancho was ill, Alfonso died of grief and despair. Sancho IV “The Brave” became the next king, his illness being not as serious as was fi rst thought, and after reigning for 11 years, he was succeeded by his son Ferdinand IV “The Summoned,” who was only nine when he became king—his mother ruled ably as regent. Little of note happened during Ferdinand IV’s reign and he gained his title from sentencing to death two brothers who had been accused of murdering a courtier. They went to their execution protesting their innocence and “summoned” Ferdinand to appear at God’s court of judgment in 30 days. As Ferdinand was only 26 years old at the time he was unconcerned, but on the 30th day after the execution his servants found him dead in bed. His one-year-old son, Alfonso XI “The Just,” became the next king and in 1337, when he was 13 years old, attacked the Moors of Granada. At the Battle of Río Salado on October 30, 1340, the Spanish, supported by the Portuguese, defeated a Moorish army. It was said to have been the fi rst European battle where cannons were used. Alfonso XI reigned until 1350 when he was 39. Alfonso was married to Maria of Portugal but spent most of his reign with Leonor de Guzmán, a noble woman who had recently been widowed. Alfonso and Leonor had a large family but when Alfonso died, Leonor was arrested on orders of the queen and taken to Talavera, where she was strangled. The next king was the son of Alfonso and Maria, Pedro I “The Cruel,” who reigned from 1350 until 1366. During the reign of Pedro I he also married Blanche of Bourbon, cousin of the king of France, but fell in love with Maria de Padilla. Initially Pedro appointed Maria’s friends and family to positions of infl uence, but some nobles forced the dismissal of supporters and relatives of Maria. In 1355 he had four of these noblemen stabbed to death, and apparently blood splattered over the dress of his wife, earning Pedro his title “The Cruel.” In 1366 he was deposed by his half brother Henry II of Trastamara, “The Bastard,” but managed to oust Henry and returned as king in the following year, spending the next two years in battles with his half brothers, and assisted by the English led by Edward the “Black Prince.” These events formed the backdrop of the French novel Agenor de Mauleon (1846) by Alexander Dumas. Eventually Pedro was murdered and Henry II was restored to the throne. Over the next 10 years, until Henry died, attempts were made, ultimately successful, to prevent John of Gaunt from invading Spain. Henry II’s only legitimate son, was John I, 21 years old, and he became king when his father died. Some 11 years later, while watching a military exercise, John I fell from his horse and was killed. His 11-year-old son, Henry III “The Infi rm,” became the next king. When he died in December 1406, his one-year-old son was proclaimed John II. When he was 13 years old, the Cortes declared the teenager to be “of age,” and John II ruled in his own right. The king had many favorites, one of whom was 88 Christian states of Spain Don Alvaro de Luna, who later writers suggested was a boyfriend of the young king. John II reigned until his death in 1454, was succeeded by his son, Henry IV, who reigned until 1474. He had a daughter and before Henry IV died, the heiress, Isabella, married Ferdinand of Aragon, uniting Christian Spain. KINGDOMS OF ARAGON AND NAVARRE The royal House of Aragon, in northeastern Spain, traces its origins back to Ramiro I (r. 1035–1063). His father, Sancho III, king of Navarre, had left him Aragon, as Ramiro was illegitimate. Ramiro was a warrior prince and quickly extended his lands, even briefl y taking part in forays into the land of his half brother Garcia III, who had inherited the rest of Navarre. In a war with the Moorish emir of Saragossa over tribute, Ramiro was killed in battle on May 8, 1063. Ramiro’s successor was his eldest son, Sancho I, who managed to recapture lands from the Moors, pushing the boundaries of Aragon to the north bank of the river Ebro. In 1076 when his cousin, the king of Navarre, died, Sancho succeeded to the throne of Navarre. In June 1094 Sancho was killed during the siege of Huesca. His son and successor, Pedro I, then became king of Aragon and Navarre, carrying on the siege of Huesca for another two years. In 1096 he defeated a large Moorish army and its Castilian allies, at the Battle of Alcoraz, with help, legends state, from St. George. Pedro’s two children died young, and in grief both he and his wife died soon afterward. Pedro was succeeded by his brother Alfonso I “The Warrior.” Having no children he was succeeded by his younger brother, Ramiro II “The Monk.” Ramiro was only king for three years, abdicating to spend the remaining 10 years of his life in a monastery. His only child, Petronilla, became queen, when she was one year old. When she turned 15 in 1151, she married Ramon Berenguer IV, count of Barcelona. Twelve years later she abdicated the throne in favor of her son Alfonso II (r. 1163–96). His eldest son and successor was Pedro II, who was alleged to have kept scandalous company with many women. With the outbreak of the Albigensian Crusade in France, and the persecution of the Cathars in southern France, Pedro II led his army into the region to demonstrate the historical ties of Aragon to the region. He tried to stop the carnage that was taking place around Carcassone and urged the pope to recognize the area as a part of Aragon, not France, which would have ended the crusade. He failed and on September 13, 1213, at the Battle of Muset, was killed in battle with the crusaders led by Simon de Montfort. Pedro’s son James I “The Conqueror” was only fi ve when he succeeded his father. After a terrible regency, James took control and led his armies in taking the Balearic Islands (1229–35), conquering Valencia from the Moors in 1233–45, and also in the campaign against Murcia in 1266. When James died his son, Pedro III, succeeded him, leading his armies against the Moors. He had a claim to the kingdom of Sicily through his wife and invaded the island in 1282, earning the title “The Great.” He was badly injured in the eye during fi ghting with the French and died soon afterward to be succeeded by his son Alfonso III “The Do-Gooder.” This interesting title came from the fact that he granted his subjects the right to bear arms. His brother and successor James II “The Just” conquered more land from the Moors and was in frequent disputes with the papacy. In 1310 he conquered Gibraltar, and possibly to placate Pope Clement V, two years later he suppressed the Order of the Knights Templar. James II was succeeded by his son Alfonso IV “The Debonair” or “The Good.” Most of his reign was spent in disputes over the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, which were captured by the Genoese. His son and successor, Pedro IV, held a huge coronation, apparently with as many as 10,000 guests, and earned the title “The Ceremonious.” He managed to lead his army into Sicily, which he recaptured, and when he died in 1387, his feeble son John I succeeded to the throne. His wife, Iolande de Bar, was actually in control of the kingdom. John died after being gored by a boar during a hunt, and his younger brother Martin “The Humane” became king. It was during his reign that the famous santo cáliz was transferred to Valencia Cathedral, where it is still revered by many as the Holy Grail. It was said that St. Peter took it from the Holy Land to Rome, and it was taken to Valencia. Martin lost the throne of Sicily and when he died in 1410, there was a brief interregnum until Ferdinand I “The Just” was proclaimed king. Ferdinand I was the son of John I and was elected king by the nobles. When Ferdinand I died in 1416, after reigning for just four years, his eldest son, Alfonso V “The Magnanimous,” became king. There was a plot to overthrow him, and he refused to hear the names of the conspirators, allowing them to go unpunished. He spent much of his time and energy in his possessions in Italy: Naples and Sicily. When he died, his lands in Spain went to his brother John, who had been king of Navarre, and he became king of Aragon and Navarre. His Italian lands went to his illegitimate son Ferdinand. John II reigned from 1458 until 1479. His greatest achievement was arranging the marriage of his son, Ferdinand, to Christian states of Spain 89 Isabella, heir to the throne of Castile. They were married in 1469 at Valladolid. When John died on January 19, 1479, the Christian kingdoms of Spain were united with Ferdinand and Isabella as joint rulers. In 1492 the armies of Ferdinand and Isabella fi nally took Granada, the last Moorish part of the Iberian Peninsula, ending the “Reconquista.” See also Muslim Spain. Further reading: Atkinson, William C. A History of Spain and Portugal. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967; Grunfeld, Frederic V. The Kings of Spain. New York: Select Books, 1983; Petrie, Sir Charles. The Spanish Royal House. London: G. Bles, 1958; Vincent, Mary, and R. A. Stradling. Cultural Atlas of Spain & Portugal. New York: Facts On File, 1994. Justin Corfi eld Chrysoloras, Manuel (c. 1350–c. 1415) scholar, humanist, and emissary Manuel Chrysoloras was born in approximately 1350, in Constantinople, only about a century before the city— and its Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire— fell to the Ottoman Turks under Mehmed II in 1453. He became a student of Georgius Gemisthos Pletho, who represented the Greek Church at the Council of Florence in 1439. The Italian Renaissance had brought to Italy a great respect for the teachings of the ancient world, which had been kept intact in Constantinople for over 1,000 years. Under Pletho’s inspiration, Cosimo de’ Medici founded the famous Academy in Florence. In 1390 Chrysoloras went to Venice to try to rouse the western Europeans against the menace posed by the Turks, then ruled by Sultan Bayezid I. He was sent as the personal emissary of Emperor Manuel I Palaeologus. There was much enmity between the west and the Byzantine Empire, and a large cause of it was the Fourth Crusade of 1204. Instead of sailing for the Holy Land to fi ght the Muslims, the ruling doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, had used the crusaders to conquer and sack Constantinople, which Venice saw as its chief rival for trade with the east. Manuel’s Palaeologus dynasty had come to power in 1261, when the Byzantines rallied under Michael Palaeologus to throw the western European knights out of Constantinople, who had ruled it since the Fourth Crusade. But as with Pletho before him any lingering ill feelings did not prevent the Italians from giving Chrysoloras a warm welcome. After his diplomatic mission, he returned to Constantinople, but the impression he had made remained. In 1396 the chancellor of the University of Florence, Coluccio Salutati, invited him back to teach. He became a highly respected teacher in Florence, continuing to teach the works of Greece and Rome. He wrote the Erotemata, the original Greek grammar and vocabulary text. The Erotemata became the basic reader of the great humanists. Chrysoloras insisted on expressing a sentence in the same grammar of the translated language. Because of this he is considered to be the father of modern translation. He taught many people but had only fi ve full-time disciples. He became one of the leaders of the humanist movement in Europe and, as with Pletho before him, most likely represented a great stimulus to the revival of ancient learning that marked the entire Renaissance in western Europe. He spent the rest of his life teaching in the west, serving at the universities of Florence, Bologna, and Rome. Later in his career the scholar resumed diplomatic work. In 1408 he represented Manuel again in an embassy to the court of France’s King Charles VI. He was chosen to represent the Greek Orthodox Church in an embassy to the Emperor Sigismund of the Holy Roman Empire in 1413. Chrysoloras sought a church council to help heal the wounds between the western and eastern Christian churches that dated from the Great Schism of 1054. This was especially needed after the failure of the crusade that had set forth in 1396 to fi ght the Turks. However, on his last diplomatic mission to see Emperor Sigismund, Manuel Chrysolaras died in the city of Constance, where the council was to be held, in 1415. See also Constantinople, massacre of; Council of Constance; Crusades; Ottoman Empire: 1299–1453. Further reading: Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. New York: Penguin Books, 1990; Kinross, Lord. The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise And Fall of the Turkish Empire. New York: Morrow Quill, 1979; Phillips, Johnathan. The Fourth Crusade and The Sack of Constantinople. New York: Penguin, 2004. John F. Murphy, Jr. Cluny At the end of the ninth and beginning of the 10th century, European society faced the turbulent effects of the destruction of central authority in civil government. This major crisis was not without repercussion in the 90 Chrysoloras, Manuel ecclesial sphere, including: schisms and scandals in the papacy, seizure of church power—even in monasteries— by the laity, and simony and sins against celibacy among the clergy. Paradoxically a religious monastic movement marked the same period. The fi rst and most infl uential center of reform was the Benedictine Abbey of Cluny (in Burgundy, France), founded in 910 by the monk Berno. The spiritual movement that began with Cluny promoted a renewal of religious life based on the Rule of Saint Benedict (sixth century) and contributed to the vigorous affi rmation of the ideals proposed by Pope Gregory VII (c. 1020–85) for the reform of the whole church. Characteristics of this new monastic trend were regularizing monastic duties, development of liturgical ritual, monastic culture based upon the study of the Bible and the church fathers, and charitable activity. To achieve exemption from control by lay people or even bishops, the Cluniac monks established a congregation of monasteries under the control and guidance of Cluny and placed themselves under the immediate jurisdiction of the pope. Thanks to outstanding abbots, Cluny and its congregation turned into something like a monastic empire and contributed to a most powerful reform of monks, diocesan clergy, and ordinary faithful. But the strength of Cluny became its weakness. The emphasis put on prayer became so exaggerated that there was no time left for the other monastic ideal of manual labor; this in turn opened the door of the monastery to feudal and political affairs. To remedy the crisis of authority facing the church, Cluny chose a strongly hierarchical and centralized organization with a head (the abbot) that ruled over the local communities. It had nevertheless become too much involved in the political establishment linked to the ruling powers of civil society. Consequently the 11th century saw the development of a widespread desire for a simpler and less institutionalized monastic life. It led to the rediscovery of eremitical life, that is, the life of solitude, and produced a variety of new orders. The Cistercians were one of them, ready to offer another solution to the problem. In 1098 Robert, the Benedictine abbot of Molesme (in Champagne, France), left his monastery with a score of brothers and established a new monastery at Cîteaux (near Dijon, about 30 miles away from Cluny). Their goal was to promote a community way of life involving greater separation from the feudal society, poverty, simplicity, return to manual labor, and authentic conformity to the Rule of Saint Benedict. At Cluny the abbot had become the head of a congregation of monasteries with great temporal power; the dependent houses had no abbots. By contrast, each Cistercian monastery founded and guided by Cîteaux was autonomous and required its own abbot to live a regular monastic life. To guarantee the return to sound traditions, the network of monasteries held themselves accountable to their way of life: Every year, another abbot visited each monastery; all the abbots would also meet together annually. Both these measures aimed at mutual aid, assurance of regular observance, and remedying of abuses and failures. This federalist type of organization, as opposed to the centralization of Cluny, better safeguarded the spiritual and material interests of each monastery. The difference of perspective however became a signifi cant source of tension and jealousy among Cistercians and Cluniacs. It was epitomized in the correspondence, for over 20 years, between Saint Bernard, abbot (1115–53) of Clairvaux (founded by Cîteaux) and spokesman for the Cistercian order, and Peter the Venerable, abbot (1122–56) of Cluny. Both were proponents for change. Peter was aware of the need for change at Cluny. He had already modifi ed obsolete customs, shortened some of the prayer services, and emphasized precepts concerning fasting, silence, and clothing. But Bernard and Peter could not agree on what constituted true monasticism. What the Cistercians considered as an authentic return to the Rule of Saint Benedict, the Cluniacs perceived as novelty and self-righteousness. Bernard’s impetuous character did not make the confl ict easier. When the Cluniacs stressed moderation, he saw laxity. A well-known document of the controversy is Bernard’s satirical treatise The Apology (1125), in which he actually also criticized those of his own monks who did not share his zeal for reform. Both men fi nally developed a more friendly relationship, but the rivalry between both orders lasted for quite some time. In the 13th century the Cistercians’ infl uence began to wane, partly because of internal decline. In the 15th century there were again serious efforts to reform Cluny. As for the later history of the Cistercians, it is largely one of repeated attempts at revival; the most famous began at the Cistercian monastery of La Trappe (France) in the 17th century by De Rancé. The houses that embraced his reform were called Trappists for the men, and Trappistines for the women. Nowadays, their offi cial title is Cistercians of the Strict Observance. Further reading: Bouchard, Constance Brittain. Sword, Miter and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, Cluny 91 980–1198. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987; Cowdrey, H. E. J. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Emmanuelle Cazabonne Columban of Leinster (543–615) Irish missionary Also known as St. Columbanus, Columban of Leinster was born in West Leinster, Ireland, in 543. He died in Bobbio, Italy, on November 21, 615. Early in life, Columban entered religious life under Sinell, an abbot in Lough Erne. He then left for the monastery of Bangor and studied under St. Comgall. He embraced the Irish form of monastic life and undertook a life of fervor, regularity, and learning. At the age of 40 Columban decided to leave the monastery and become a missionary, preaching the Gospel in foreign lands. In 585 he sailed with 12 companions and landed on the coast of Scotland, then moved on to France. The French people converted to Christianity in large numbers and clergy in that area were reformed from their worldly ways. The companions traveled together to Burgundy and with the blessing of King Gontram, settled in an old Roman fortress and began a monastery. So many noblemen and peasants fl ocked to Columban, wishing to join his monastery, that the saint was forced to start a second monastery at Luxeuil in 590. Columban spent much of his time in solitary prayer and fasting in a cave, but superiors of both monasteries remained subordinate to him. He wrote his rule of monastic life for these two communities while living in the cave. In 602 Columban was at the center of a controversy over the right of monasteries in Gaul to be independent of the area bishops. The bishops of Gaul had retained control over monasteries in their territories, unlike the bishops of Ireland, who allowed monasteries varying degrees of independence. In 602 the bishops of Gaul met to judge Columban and his control of monasteries. His appeals to successive popes went unanswered and the question was never defi nitively answered. Columban also advised the nobility of Gaul. In one instance, he sought to keep Thierry, heir to Burgundy, steadfast in opposition to concubinage, a policy set forth by the queen-regent to prevent the possible infl uence of another queen over her minor son’s life. The queen-regent, Brunehild, had Columban and his monastic rules condemned by the Burgundian bishops. Columban refused to conform to their decrees and was imprisoned, but escaped and returned to his monastery. Thierry, who had never followed the advice of the saint, conspired to have Columban and his Irish monks driven to the sea and sent back to Ireland. Their ship never got far from shore and was driven back by a storm. Columban escaped to Neustria and then to Austrasia in 611. He proceeded to Mainz and went into the countryside to preach the Gospel to the Suevi and Alamanni tribes. His zeal did not convert the Swiss and he was persecuted. He converted some in other regions and established at least one more monastery but was again persecuted and crossed the Alps into Italy. Once in Milan, Columban was befriended by the king and began to argue against the Arian heresy. All he wrote against them has been lost. He also fought Nestorianism with Gregory the Great and submitted the Irish church to the decisions of the papacy, saying the Irish were disciples of St. Peter and St. Paul, not of heretics. For his efforts, the pope gave Columban a piece of land called Bobbio, near Genoa. On his way to settling this land, he preached so well at the town of Mombrione that the town changed its name to San Colombano. The monastery Columban founded at Bobbio was for centuries the center of Catholic orthodoxy in northern Italy. He died at Bobbio and his body is preserved in the church there. See also Irish monastic scholarship, golden age of. Further reading: Farmer, David H. The Oxford Dictionary of Saints. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987; Plummer, Charles. Lives of Irish Saints. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922. Russell James Constance, Council of The Council of Constance was the last and most successful of a series of church councils called to heal the division in the Catholic Church between followers of the popes in Avignon and followers of the popes in Rome. By the time the council was actually convened, on November 1, 1414, there was also a third, consiliar papacy, set up by the Council of Pisa in 1409, in a failed attempt at a fresh start. Unlike Pisa the new council involved secular princes as well as ecclesiastics, convoked by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund as well as by the antipope John XXIII. John, who held the loyalty of the ecclesiastics attending the council, 92 Columban of Leinster hoped to use it to his own ends, but the council went against him, partly because of the scandalous life that made him seem unfi t for the position of vicar of Christ. John’s plan to have the council vote by head, which would enable him to use the majority of Italians loyal to him, was defeated in favor a plan to vote by nation. Each national delegation (Italian, German, French, and English) would decide its position, and a majority of nations would carry the vote. After John fl ed the council and was forcibly returned, he was formally deposed in May 1415, and the church was declared without a head. The problem of the Roman line was settled when Gregory XII abdicated on July 4, although not before his representative had formally reconvened the council, giving it legitimacy in Roman eyes. The Avignon pope, Benedict XIII, never formally abandoned power. However, his (principally Spanish) allies quietly deserted him and generally acquiesced in the election of Cardinal Odo Colonna as Pope Martin V in 1417. The other great problem the council faced was the growth of heresy, particularly that of the Wycliffi tes or Lollards in England and the Hussites in Bohemia. John Huss had traveled to the council on a vow of safe conduct granted by Sigismund. He hoped to explain and vindicate his positions, but once in Constance he found himself subject to an ecclesiastical trial carried on by the council. (There was a legal argument that church authorities were not bound by a safe conduct vow given by a secular prince like Sigismund to a man suspected of heresy.) Huss was burned on July 6, 1415. The next year Huss’s disciple, Jerome of Prague, who had fl ed the council and been taken back in chains, followed him into the fl ames. The council also condemned John Wycliffe’s teachings and ordered his body removed from consecrated ground. Some hoped that the council could reform the church and exert an authority superior to the popes’. The conciliar decree Haec Sancta, passed in 1415, declared that the council derived its power from Christ and that all Christians, including the pope, owed it obedience. In 1417 the council passed a decree providing for regular councils, but Pope Martin took a high view of papal supremacy over the church. A struggle between the council and the pope was averted when Martin offered concessions to national delegations in return for agreeing in the council’s dissolution and declared the council dissolved in May 1418. See also heresies, pre-Reformation. Further reading: Deanesly, Margaret. History of the Medieval Church, 590–1500. London: Methuen, 1969; Loomis, Louis Ropes. The Council of Constance: The Unifi cation of the Church. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961; Stump, Phillip H. The Reforms of the Council of Constance, 1414–1418. New York: E. J. Brill, 1994. William E. Burns Constantinople, massacre of The Fourth Crusade had a devastating impact on the Byzantine Empire and its capital, Constantinople. For an enormous charge, the Venetians offered to transport the forces of the Fourth Crusade to Egypt to fi ght the Muslim “infi dels.” But the Venetians never intended to attack the Egyptian Muslim rulers, with whom they had an extensive and lucrative trade. Instead after some maneuvering, the Venetians convinced the crusaders to attack and take Zara, a strategic and rich Adriatic port. The spoils from Zara were divided among the Venetians and the crusaders. The crusaders then ignored the orders of Pope Innocent III not to attack Byzantium. In 1204 the crusaders, aboard Venetian ships, landed at Constantinople, then the richest city in Europe. The aged Venetian doge, Enrico Dandolo, personally led the crusaders, mostly French, into the city. Hundreds of Muslim worshippers were killed as well as several thousand Greek Christians, considered as heretics by Latin Catholics. Having traded extensively with Byzantine merchants, the Venetians were familiar with the city and its treasures and embarked on extensive and systematic destruction, pillaging, and theft of the city’s wealth. To the present day, many art collections in Venice, including the famous bronze horses overlooking Piazza di San Marco, were stolen from Constantinople in 1204. The crusaders installed Baldwin of Flanders as head of the new Latin Kingdom of Constantinople and replaced the Greek clergy with Latin clergy. The Latin Kingdom proved short-lived and after its collapse Greek Byzantine rulers returned to Constantinople, but the city never regained its former glory or power. See also Byzantine Empire: political history; Crusades; Venice. Further reading: Setton, Kenneth, ed. A History of the Crusades. 6 vols. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969– 1989; Runciman, Steven. A History of the Crusades. 3 vols. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1951, 1952, 1954. Janice J. Terry Constantinople, massacre of 93 Crusades In 1095 Pope Urban II incited the Crusades with a speech urging Christian armies to free the holy sites, especially Jerusalem, from Muslim control. The Crusades sparked a fi re of religious fervor among thousands of young knights and other Christian believers. Other crusaders were adventurers, fortune seekers, and the poor and destitute. In part the Roman Catholic Church sought the return of the Holy Land to Christian rule because the Seljuk Turks could not ensure the safety of Christian pilgrims. The Seljuk dynasty also extracted high taxes from and sometimes persecuted Christian pilgrims. The success of the early Crusades also refl ected the disarray and weakness of the Arab-Muslim world in the 11th century. The First Crusade (1096–99) was preceded by the Peasant Crusade, a crusade of hungry peasants; most died on the way to the Holy Land. Some 30,000 soldiers, mostly Franks and Germans, participated in the First Crusade. The crusaders crossed the Anatolia Peninsula and took Antioch in 1097. They then moved on to take Jerusalem in 1099 where they massacred thousands of civilians, mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians, considered as heretics by the Catholics, and Jews. First hand accounts describe the city running with blood knee-deep for several days. After taking the city, the crusading knights gathered in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and proclaimed Godfrey of Bouillon as king. Godfrey continued the war and extended crusader territory. Some knights settled more or less permanently in the new Crusader States, that at its greatest extent included the Syrian coast and Palestine. The Crusader States replicated the feudal system prevalent in Europe. Fiefs were given to favored knights who were tied together for common defense. The crusaders built huge castles, often enlarging older Arab fortresses on high ground in strategic locations. Some of these castles, such as Beaufort Castle in Lebanon and the Krak des Chevaliers (Quala’at al-Husn) in Syria, still stand. Indigenous Arab villagers were little affected by the crusader rule as they were accustomed to giving tribute to local lords and fulfi lling obligations of service during wartime. Likewise the Crusader States had little or no impact on the vast interior regions of the Arab-Muslim world. Under the crusaders, agriculture remained the mainstay of the economy. However the Crusader States were strategically and economically vulnerable. Church and military orders were exempt from taxation and the Italians enjoyed special extraterritorial rights. Indeed the Italian city-states who provided transportation at high costs for many crusaders and fi nancial backing, at high interest rates, for expeditions were among the chief benefi ciaries of the Crusades. The Crusader States were also dependent on Italian city-states for supplies from Europe. The Second Crusade (1146–48) led by King Louis VII of France and Emperor Conrad III followed the same geographic route as the First Crusade, but attempts to take Damascus failed. Conrad returned to Germany because of sickness, but Louis remained to make pilgrimages to the holy sites. At the time of the First Crusade Syria had been close to political collapse as rival powers struggled for ascendancy throughout the eastern Mediterranean after the collapse of the Abbasids. However Muslims challenged the crusaders and launched a series of counterattacks to regain control of Jerusalem and Syria. Saladin proved the most formidable Muslim opponent. He united the Muslims and at the Battle of Horns of Hattin in the summer of 1187 stopped crusader expansion into the heartland of the Arab world. He then attacked crusader strongholds and took Jerusalem in 1187. The fall of Jerusalem provoked the Third Crusade led by King Richard I of England, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, and Philip II of France. Frederick drowned in Asia Minor in 1190 and after Philip and Richard quarreled, Philip returned to France. Without taking Jerusalem, Richard negotiated a truce with Saladin that ensured safe passage of Christian pilgrims into the city. Although Pope Innocent III called for new attacks on Jerusalem, the crusading zeal was beginning to wane. When the Venetians demanded a high price to take crusading troops to Egypt, the Muslim military stronghold, the crusaders moved against Constantinople, the famed capital of the Byzantine Empire. In the Fourth Crusade, the crusaders looted Constantinople and established a short-lived (1204–1261) Latin Empire there. The attack on Constantinople undermined the papacy and crippled the Byzantine Empire, which became more vulnerable to subsequent attacks by the Ottoman Turks. It also exacerbated animosities between Eastern Orthodox believers and the Roman Catholic Church. That schism persisted into the 21st century. After Saladin’s death, divisions within the Muslim world enabled the crusaders to retain tenuous control of their territory, but Mamluk rulers resumed attacks from Egypt in the mid-13th century. Sultan Baybars (r. 1260– 1277) launched annual attacks against the Frankish kingdoms, taking most of the Palestinian coastal cities. He also defeated the Mongols, thereby preventing them from taking the coast. His military exploits were often favorably compared to those of Saladin. The Mamluks captured the city of Tripoli in 1289. The Mamluk Sultan 94 Crusades al-Ashraf Khalil took Acre, the last crusader outpost, in 1291. Signifying the end of the crusader presence, the city was looted and razed. Sultan Khalil was feted as a conquering hero on his return to Cairo. However as with many Mamluk rulers, rivals to the throne assassinated Khalil within a year of his victory. The Crusades marked almost 200 years of intermittent warfare and sporadic coexistence between Christian Europe and the Muslim East. The exchanges fostered many negative cultural and religious stereotypes. Positive results included the introduction of many new goods, including brocades, perfumes, soaps, and foodstuffs, especially spices, to the West. Damascus retained its importance as a center for industry and commerce while Jerusalem was a religious center. Some crusaders remained, intermarried, and assimilated into Muslim society. The Italian city-states established long-lasting commercial ties that continued even during times of open warfare. The wealth from this trade helped to fi nance the cultural fl owering of the Renaissance. In the long term, the Crusades worsened Christian-Muslim relations and intensifi ed religious animosities. In spite of having been under Muslim rule for over 400 years, most of the population in the eastern Mediterranean was still Christian when the crusaders arrived. However the massacres of Eastern Orthodox Christians by the crusaders and their rude treatment of the local population ironically contributed to a massive conversion of Christians to Islam after the fall of the Crusader States. See also Constantinople, massacre of; feudalism: Europe. Further reading: Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade: A New History, the Roots of Confl ict between Christianity and Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; Hillenbrand, Carole. The Crusades. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999; Holt, P. M. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. London: Longman, 1986; Ibn-Munqidh, Usamah. An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munqidh. Trans. by Philip K. Hitti. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987; Jacoby, David. Commercial Exchanges Across the Mediterranean. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2005. Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Crusades 95 The Krak des Chevaliers, or knight’s fortress, in Syria, built during the Crusades. Krak des Chevaliers was the headquarters of the Knights Hospitaller. It was expanded between 1150 and 1250; the fortress has outer walls 100 feet thick. Through Arab Eyes. Trans. by Jon Rothschild. New York: Schocken Books, 1987. Janice J. Terry Cyril and Methodios Christian missionaries and scholars The brothers Saint Cyril and Saint Methodios were born around 827 and 825, respectively, in the bilingual (Greek and Slav) city of Thessalonika to a prominent Byzantine family. They were educated in Constantinople, where Cyril was a professor at the patriarchal school, and Methodios entered the religious life, rapidly becoming an archimandrite (abbot) of one of the city’s monasteries. Their fi rst missionary endeavor, to the Khazars northeast of the Black Sea, was a failure, with many of the Khazars converting to Judaism. In 862 Prince Rostislav of Great Moravia asked the Byzantine emperor Michael III for missionaries and Photius the Great, patriarch of Constantinople, sent Cyril and Methodios. Immediately the brothers set to translating the Byzantine liturgy and New Testament into a language later called Church Slavonic, even developing an alphabet based on the Greek alphabet for the Slavic tribes. In 863 the brothers arrived in Great Moravia and achieved extensive success. This led to confl ict with German bishops who claimed authority over the Moravian territory. Because of this dispute, the brothers were invited to Rome, where Pope Adrian II accepted the brothers’ work and authorized the Slavonic liturgy. Cyril died in Rome on February 14, 869. Methodios returned to Great Moravia as the pope’s representative and archbishop of Sirmium. Unfortunately this did not end the abuse from the German bishops, who tried him for heresy and imprisoned him until he was ordered released by Pope John VIII. In 880 he again traveled to Rome, where the pope again approved the liturgical innovations. After an 882 trip to Constantinople to attend a church council called to support the missionary effort, he returned to Moravia, where he died on April 6, 885. After Methodios’s death Pope Stephen V forbade the use of the Slavic liturgy, and the disciples of the brothers were forced into exile outside Great Moravia. These disciples spread Byzantine Christianity to the Carpathian Mountains, Poland, and eventually distant Kiev in modern-day Ukraine, using the Slavonic language of Cyril and Methodios. The Cyrillic alphabet, developed by the brothers, continues to be the basis of the alphabets used in a number of traditionally Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox countries. The original alphabet contained 44 letters. Today the modern languages of Russian, Ukrainian, Carpatho-Rusyn, Serbian, and Bulgarian have used modifi ed versions of the Cyrillic alphabet. The Byzantine Church rapidly canonized the brothers for their missionary work and created their principal feast day on May 11. In 1880 the Roman Catholic Church began to celebrate their feast on February 14. Further reading: Mango, Cyril, ed. The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford University Press USA, 2002; Hastings, Adrian, ed. A World History of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Bryan R. Eyman

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez (c. 1490–1557) Spanish explorer of America Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca was the first European to see and travel through the U.S. Southwest and author of one of the most remarkable tales in the history of exploration. He and several companions survived a shipwreck off the Texas coast in 1528, were enslaved by Indians, escaped, and spent the next eight years wandering westward through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and possibly California before turning south into Mexico and reuniting with their countrymen. His official report of this remarkable odyssey of some 6,200 miles, submitted to the king under the title La Relación (The Account), was published in 1542. His report stirred the Spanish imagination with its speculations about the fabled “Seven Cities of Cibola,” which he claimed lay just to the north of the lands through which he had journeyed, while also providing modern-day scholars with an unprecedented glimpse into Native American society and culture before the Spanish invasion and conquest of portions of the U.S. Southwest after 1550. Born in Jérez, Andalusia, Spain about 1490, Álvar Núñez was the grandson of Pedro de Vera, renowned for his ruthless conquest of the Canary Islands in the early and mid-1400s. (Cabeza de vaca, or “cow’s head,” was an honorific title bestowed on his mother’s side of the family from an incident in the reconquest of Iberia dating to the year 1212; this explorer is often referred to simply as Álvar Núñez.) After a distinguished military career in Spain from 1511 to the 1520s, in 1527 he was appointed second in command of an expedition of conquest in Florida led by Pánfilo de Narváez. It was Narváez’s bungling leadership, along with bad luck and bad weather, that eventually led to the shipwreck off the coast of Texas, whence the Cabeza de Vaca’s overland odyssey commenced. Certain features of Cabeza de Vaca’s Relación have received particular attention. One concerns the customs and lifestyles of the indigenous peoples whose paths he and his companions crossed. Descriptions of their foods, material cultures, gender relations, marriage rites, celebrations, religious beliefs and practices, languages, methods of warfare, and relations with other groups captivated European readers. Cabeza de Vaca’s personal transformation is another element of the book that readers find striking. Stripped of the accoutrements of European civilization, Cabeza de Vaca grows humbler, more spiritual, and more appreciative and sympathetic with his native hosts. His journey has thus been interpreted as both a literal journey across unknown lands, and an inner spiritual journey in which he comes to acknowledge the humanity of the Indians. This is reflected, some maintain, in the reputation he and his companions earned as healers. Time and again they reportedly cured the ailments of those soliciting their assistance, an aspect of his Relación that has aroused considerable attention. In the 1930s, the scholars Carl Sauer and Cleve Hallenbeck attempted to retrace Cabeza de Vaca’s overland journey. Hallenbeck’s account is still considered the definitive study on the topic. After reuniting with his countrymen and returning to Spain in 1537, Cabeza de Vaca was appointed governor of the Río de la Plata region. Undertaking further remarkable overland odysseys in South America, he ran afoul of the authorities, was imprisoned for two years, and was sent back to Spain, where he was found guilty but pardoned by the king. His odyssey inspired an award-winning film (Cabeza de Vaca, 1991), further testimony to the enduring interest inspired by his extraordinary odyssey as described in his Relación. See also voyages of discovery. Further reading: Hallenbeck, Cleve. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca: The Journey and Route of the First Europeans to Cross the Continent of North America. Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark, 1940; Covey, Cyclone, translator and annotator. Cabeza de Vaca’s Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993. Michael J. Schroeder Cabot, John (c. 1451–c. 1498) and Sebastian (c. 1483–1557) European explorers Key figures among the European explorers during the age of discovery whose exploits gave important knowledge of the Americas to their European patrons, John Cabot (c. 1451–98) and his son, Sebastian Cabot (c. 1483–1557), have long been a source of controversy and speculation regarding various aspects of their lives and achievements. Probably born in Genoa around 1451, John Cabot moved to Venice in his youth, where he became a naturalized citizen. Believing, like Christopher Columbus, that he could reach the Far East by sailing west, he journeyed to England in the 1480s, residing mainly in Bristol until March 1496, when King Henry VII granted him the authority to launch an expedition of discovery in his name. Sailing from Bristol on May 20, 1497, with one ship and a crew of 18, he reached the North American coast on June 24. It is not known whether his son, Sebastian, accompanied him. The precise location of his landing is a matter of some dispute but is generally believed to be Cape Breton Island. Cabot is conventionally credited with “discovering” North America on behalf of his English patrons, even though the fish-rich seas off the coast of northern North America had been visited for most of the previous century by commercial fishermen of various European nationalities. Regardless of which European first sighted the North American mainland during this era, Cabot’s claims of discovery became the basis for English claims to North America. Rewarded for his discovery with an annual pension of 20 pounds, Cabot launched a second voyage in 1498. He was never heard from again and is presumed to have died in or near North America. His son, Sebastian, also received a patent from the king of England to continue the explorations begun by his father. Searching for the fabled Northwest Passage through the Americas to the Far East, he is generally believed to have explored the northern shores of North America, perhaps sailing as far as Hudson Bay, in 1508–09. In 1512, he switched patrons, entering the Spanish service under Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1518, he was named chief pilot, and in 1526, following the return of the ship of Ferdinand Magellan, he sailed to the Río de la Plata region of southern South America, probably searching for gold and other treasure. In 1530, after the expedition had largely failed, he returned to Spain. In 1548, he switched patrons again, returning to England and in 1553 becoming governor of a joint-stock company, later known as the Muscovy Company, much of whose capital was expended in the failed effort to discover the Northwest Passage. One of the company’s expeditions did reach the White Sea, culminating in a commercial treaty with Russia and substantial weakening of the Hanseatic League. Sebastian Cabot claimed for himself many of the discoveries and John and Sebastian Cabot are credited with the discovery of North America, although their exact landing spot is not known. 60 Cabot, John (c. 1451–c. 1498 ) and Sebastian (c. 1483 –1557) achievements of his father. Until the work of 19th-century scholars, it was thought that Sebastian, not John, had “discovered” North America for the English. See also voyages of discovery. Further reading: Firstbrook, Peter L. The Voyage of the Matthew: John Cabot and the Discovery of North America. San Francisco: KQED, 1997; Harrisse, Henry. John Cabot, the Discoverer of North America, and Sebastian, His Son; A Chapter of the Maritime History of England under the Tudors, 1496–1557. London: Stevens, 1896. Michael J. Schroeder Cabral, Pedro Álvares (c. 1460–1526?) Portuguese explorer Commissioned by the king of Portugal Manuel I to follow the route of fellow Portuguese navigator Vasco Da Gama around the Cape of Good Hope on a major trading expedition to India, the nobleman Pedro Álvares Cabral set sail from Lisbon on March 8, 1500, in command of 1,200 men in 13 ships laden with trade goods and provisions sufficient to last a year. Swinging far to the west—by some accounts to avoid a brewing storm, by others in consequence of being blown off course by a storm—on April 2, 1500, he encountered instead the coast of Brazil, with whose discovery he is generally credited. There, at various spots along the beach, he and his crew spent nine days peaceably bartering and interacting with the natives. Building a large wooden cross, planting a flag, and claiming the land for Portugal, Cabral and his expedition sailed on to India. He left behind two convicts, previously condemned to death, in the hopes that they would mix with the natives. What became of them is not known, though the episode illustrates the Portuguese policy of promoting miscegenation as a way to draw unknown lands and peoples into the Portuguese orbit. Cabral also filled one of his ships, the Lemos, with brazilwood, a red-tinted tree whose pulp, he correctly surmised, would serve as a commercially viable textile dye. Cabral sent the Lemos and brazilwood straight back to Portugal, along with a long descriptive letter on the discovery from the ship’s chronicler, Pêro Vaz de Caminha. Caminha’s letter was the first European eyewitness description of Brazil. In it he paid special attention to what he perceived as the simplicity, innocence, and primitivism of the people, represented especially in their nakedness. His report, like those of others who followed in subsequent years, fueled the European imagination regarding the “noble savages” inhabiting the New World. Caminha was also struck by the natives’ lack of domesticated animals; their lack of knowledge of metal, including gold; and the limited commercial potential of the land and its people. Fortunately for the Portuguese the lands Cabral and his men had just encountered fell well within the boundaries of the lands granted to Portugal as codified in the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494. In subsequent years, the Portuguese Crown commissioned a series of navigators to continue the explorations and trade relations begun by Cabral. By the 1530s, Brazil had been loosely incorporated into the Portuguese sphere of influence, though their superior position was tentative and under serious challenge by the French. See also Brazil, conquest and colonization of. Further reading: Hemming, John. Red Gold: The Conquest of the Brazilian Indians. London: Papermac, 1978; Fausto, Boris. Concise History of Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Michael J. Schroeder cacao Called kakaw in the language of the ancient Maya, associated with the merchant deity El Chuaj, or “black scorpion,” cacao (processed into cocoa), from which chocolate is derived, was widely produced across large parts of lowland Mesoamerica and Central America, the regions to which it was indigenous. Like coffee, the seed of a small tree, cacao was one of the region’s most important trade items, with cacao beans often used as a form of currency, as among the Aztecs. Cultivated since at least 600 b.c.e., cacao was one of the chief items of trade and export among some Maya polities, such as the Early Classic Pacific Coast city-state of Balberta. Its consumption limited to the elite, with strict taboos against commoners’ production and use, cacao was mixed with foods and spices such as chili, maize flour, and cinnamon to make various chocolate drinks. The conquest of Mexico and conquest of Central America transformed the production and consumption of cacao in important ways. No longer restricted exclusively to the elite, cacao consumption soared among most all social groups—Indian, Spanish, mestizo, and, to a lesser extent, Africans. Spaniards also changed the traditional recipe, often dispensing with maize flour cacao 61 and sweetening it with sugar and vanilla. By the mature colonial period, cacao had become a most popular nonalcoholic beverage in Spanish and colonial Mexico. Cacao also became an important element in Spain’s mercantile economy, along with other tropical export commodities such as sugar, tobacco, indigo, and cochineal. As a result of increased demand, both within the colonies and overseas, cacao production increased dramatically. Cacao plantations soon emerged across Mesoamerica and the circum-Caribbean, including Venezuela, along the Pacific coast from Guatemala to Ecuador and Peru, and southeast to the settled coastal areas of Brazil. Guatemala witnessed a cacao boom in the decades after the initial conquests that declined along with Indian populations after 1570. Cacao, along with maize, beans, and other staple crops, became one of the stock items that encomienda Indians were required to pay in tribute to their encomendero masters. Throughout the colonial period, as the European market for American tropical export commodities grew, cacao, transformed with sugar into various types of chocolate, became very popular among both the elite and Europe’s burgeoning industrial working classes. This was part and parcel of a consumption revolution within Europe in consequence of overseas colonization and the Industrial Revolution, as urban working classes in particular consumed increasingly prodigious quantities of coffee, tea, tobacco, sugar, and chocolate. Cacao, like coffee, also became increasingly important across large parts of Africa, transforming local economies and local consumption patterns. An important element of the Columbian exchange, cacao, along with maize, manioc, potatoes, and other staple crops, represented yet another of the Americas’ gifts to the world. See also sugarcane plantations in the americas. Further reading: Burkholder, Mark A., and Lyman L. Johnson. Colonial Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990; Mintz, Sidney W. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Viking, 1985; Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Traxler. The Ancient Maya. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006. Michael J. Schroeder caciques in Latin America Cacique (ka-SEE-kay) is an umbrella term designating a wide variety of indigenous forms of political rule in pre-Columbian and postconquest Latin America, particularly Spanish America. In the Andean highlands, the equivalent term is curaca or kuraka (koo-RA-ka). Cacique refers to an individual political headman, chief, or local lord, almost always male, while cacicazgo (kasee- KAZ-go) refers the political and social institution of rule by caciques. Most indigenous polities encountered by the Spanish in their explorations and conquests were governed by caciques. In many instances, such as highland Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru, the privileged social and political status of caciques/curacas was hereditary, though the specific degree of political authority they exercised varied enormously, from almost absolute to a kind of “first among equals” status in more egalitarian polities. In other cases, such as parts of Nicaragua, political power was exercised by a kind of council of elders, and cacicazgo as such did not exist. In the postconquest environment, the Spanish found the institution of cacicazgo extremely useful, as it allowed for the formation of a class of indigenous leaders who would serve as intermediaries between the mass of indigenous inhabitants and Spanish priests, administrators, and encomenderos. Caciques, where they existed and where possible, were thus effectively transformed into agents of the colonial state. Where the institution of cacicazgo did not exist (as in parts of Nicaragua), it was essentially imposed upon indigenous societies by the Spanish conquerors in the effort to create viable institutions of indirect rule. Overall the Spanish found the existence and perpetuation of indigenous nobility highly desirable. Such an elite class of local lords, loyal to the Crown, would minimize social disruption; legitimate the conquests; obviate the need for direct rule and the enormous expenditures of resources such rule would require; and provide a ready mechanism for social control among a defeated and potentially rebellious populace. In practice, the formation and reproduction of such a class of local lords proved exceptionally difficult, given the ambiguous structural position of caciques of essentially serving two masters, each with material and cultural interests antithetical to those of the other: on the one hand, the Spanish rulers, interested mainly in extraction of surplus labor and Christianization; and on the other hand, the mass of indigenous inhabitants, interested mainly in retaining as much surplus production and indigenous forms of religiosity as possible. In the postconquest period, then, caciques/curacas thus often found their grip on power both tenuous and partial, able to meet the expectations and requirements of neither their Spanish overlords nor their indigenous underlings. The literature abounds with analyses of 62 caciques in Latin America the ambiguous structural position of caciques/curacas, which many scholars regard as crucial to understanding the colonial period as a whole. In some respects the indigenous practice of cacicazgo paralleled the Spanish institution of caudillos and caudillismo, though there were important differences. Both were patriarchal institutions in which political power was exercised by political strongmen through extensive networks of clients and subordinates. In general, however, most caudillos were of Iberian extraction and gained power through their martial and political skills, while most caciques ruled indigenous communities by virtue of hereditary or natural right. In many communities, localized variants of the institution of cacicazgo continued into the 20th century, making it one of the most enduring forms of political practice in the Americas. See also Andean religion; encomienda in Spanish America. Further reading: MacLeod, Murdo J. Spanish Central America: A Socioeconomic History, 1520–1720. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973; Stern, Steve J. Peru’s Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: Huamanga to 1640. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Michael J. Schroeder Cajamarca, Peru Site of one of the most memorable and important set of events in the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the valley and town of Cajamarca sit high in the northern Andes Mountains. It was here, on Friday, November 15, 1532, that Francisco Pizarro’s 62 horsemen and 106 foot soldiers had the striking good fortune to encounter the large military force of the Inca Atahualpa. The next day, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the greatly outnumbered Spanish force launched a surprise attack from behind a series of walled enclosures, slaughtering an estimated 6,000 of the Inca’s soldiers before taking the Inca himself hostage. The Inca soldiers, wielding slings and clubs, proved no match for the armored Spanish horsemen and their steel swords and pikes. After witnessing the deaths of thousands of his troops, the captive Inca offered the bearded strangers an enormous ransom of gold, silver, and precious objects to secure his release—enough to fill a room measuring approximately 85 cubic meters: the famous Atahualpa’s ransom. For the next seven months, trains of porters carted to Cajamarca precious objects from across the Inca realm. During this period, the Spanish had ample opportunity to observe the Inca and take careful note of his and his followers’ customs and rituals. Regarded as a semidivine being, the Inca had his every need attended to by large numbers of servants and retainers. In mid-February 1533, as the treasure slowly trickled into Cajamarca and his men grew increasingly restless, Pizarro sent a large reconnaissance expedition, led by his brother Hernando, south to survey the route to the Inca capital in Cuzco. In mid-April 1533, the 153- strong contingent of Diego de Almagro marched into Cajamarca from the Pacific coast, effectively doubling the Spanish force. Not having participated in the slaughter in the square or capture of Atahualpa, Almagro and his men were to receive a substantially lesser share of the ransom, sowing the seeds of the Almagrist civil wars that wracked the early years of the conquest of Peru. Eleven days later, on April 25, after some three months, the reconnaissance expedition of Hernando Pizarro returned to Cajamarca with important intelligence on the topography that lay between Cajamarca and Cuzco and the distribution of the Inca’s military strength. The melting down of the accumulated treasure began on March 16, 1533, and continued for nearly four A depiction of the seizure of the Inca Atahualpa at Cajamarca by Spaniards in the northern Andes Mountains Cajamarca, Peru 63 months, until July 9. Distribution of the loot commenced on July 16. An estimated 110,000 kilograms of gold objects were melted down in the furnaces of Cajamarca, transformed from vessels, ornaments, and other artistic objects into bars of bullion. Each Spanish soldier received an allotment based on his rank, status, and degree of participation in the events of November 15–16, 1532, with Almagro’s men receiving a far lesser share than Pizarro’s. Finally, on July 26, 1533, some 10 days after the distribution of the loot began, Pizarro decided not to honor the agreement to release Atahualpa but instead to execute him. All of these events mark Cajamarca as the site of one of the most dramatic and important episodes in the history of the European conquest of the New World. Further reading: Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. New York: Viking, 1979; Lockhart, James. The Men of Cajamarca. Austin, TX: Institute of Latin American Studies, 1972. Michael J. Schroeder Calvin, John (1509–1564) religious leader John (Jean) Calvin was a key figure in the Protestant Reformation. He influenced directly or indirectly the beginning of the Reformed churches (Swiss Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, and other “Calvinist” churches). Like Martin Luther, Calvin was a scholar and prolific writer. He is most famous for his Institutes of the Christian Religion, a systematic presentation of the Protestant Christian faith, but his influence extends far beyond this book. The British statesman Lord Morley wrote: “To omit Calvin from the forces of Western evolution, is to read history with one eye shut.” Born in 1509 at Picardy, a city south of Paris, Calvin studied law at the University of Orléans. He then studied under some humanist scholars at the Collège de France in Paris beginning in 1531. During this time, Calvin experienced what he later called a “sudden conversion” in his understanding of the Christian religion, becoming convinced that the Protestant thought of Luther and the humanist influence of Erasmus of Rotterdam were true. At this time, France was completely Catholic and opposed any Protestant influences that came from nearby Germany or Switzerland. When Calvin’s friend Nicholas Cop delivered his inaugural address at the University of Paris in 1533, it caused a sensation, as Cop used evangelical language drawn from both Luther and Erasmus. King Francis swiftly condemned the “Lutherans,” and both Calvin and Cop had to flee, with Calvin settling in Basel, Switzerland (a Protestant city), in 1535. Calvin felt compelled to make a defense for his beliefs to the French king. The result was the first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. The original edition was divided into six articles or chapters and was ordered in a fashion similar to that of Luther’s catechism. In later editions, Calvin added two chapters, but much more explanation (the eighth edition, written in 1559, was more than four times the size of the first). The emphasis in Luther’s writings was on the doctrine of justification by faith, but Calvin’s emphasis was on the sovereignty of God and for him it was a key to understanding man: “Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” Calvin is perhaps best known for his views on predestination, “that terrible doctrine,” where Calvin asserted that God’s plan for individuals is foreknown andpredestined. While a person still has free will, the person’s free will intersects with God’s foreknowledge. Since God “knows” in advance if a person is destined for heaven or hell, how do the person’s own decisions affect this destiny? Calvin’s views on this highly complex area were simplified by many readers to assert that God chooses which people go to heaven and which ones go to hell. Calvin is also associated with Geneva, Switzerland. Because of the tight connection between church and state, various rulers in the early years of the Reformation would decide for a region whether it would become Protestant or remain Catholic. In Switzerland, each city ruled itself by means of a town council. In 1536, the general assembly of the city of Geneva voted unanimously to become Protestant. Calvin was asked by the Protestant preacher and leader William Farel to help organize the city. Calvin’s legal training and gift of organization soon resulted in a novel form of separation of church and state in Geneva by means of a series of regulations called the Ecclesiastical Ordinances. Geneva was ruled by the town council, but there was also a council of all the pastors in the city called a consistory, which included a group of men to watch over the morals of the city. The city had laws against various forms of immorality (ranging from prostitution to dancing, card playing, or wearing “slashed breeches”). The town council wanted to ensure that it had full authority for civil matters; yet the Ecclesiastical Ordinances recognized a shared authority in certain areas: “These arrangements do not mean that the pastors have 64 Calvin, John any civil jurisdiction, nor that the authority of the consistory interferes in any way with the authority of the magistrates and the civil courts.” Though some have called this period of Geneva’s history a time of “theocracy,” this term does not accurately reflect the actual organization of the city. Calvin’s influence has extended to many churches throughout the world. Churches that are “Reformed” or “Calvinist” in their theology include Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican/Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, and Congregational. There are many reasons for this influence. First, the Institutes of the Christian Religion was a remarkable work and is still used as a basis for Reformed doctrine to this day. Second, many English Protestant pastors and theologians fled to Switzerland during the persecution under the reign of Queen “Bloody” Mary (Mary I) of England. When Mary was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth I in 1558, the theologians were able to return, but did so convinced of reformed doctrine. Thus the English churches became largely reformed in their doctrine, though their various practices of worship differed. Finally, Calvin’s close associate Theodore Beza must be credited with further systematizing the work Calvin began. Beza was an equally prolific writer and continued the influence of Calvin’s thought and writing into the 17th century. Calvin was an austere man, wholly dedicated to his preaching, governance, and writing. He married a widow named Idelette de Bure in 1541. She had three children from her previous marriage and bore a son, Jacques, on July 28, 1542, but Jacques only lived a few days. Idelette was in poor health after this time, and died in 1549. Calvin died in the arms of his disciple and friend Theodore Beza on May 27, 1564, at the age of 55. Further reading: Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. New York: Penguin, 1964; McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990; Spitz, Lewis W. The Renaissance and Reformation Movements. Volume II: The Reformation. St. Louis: Concordia, 1971. Bruce D. Franson Caribbean, conquest of the The Spanish conquest of the islands of the Caribbean region constituted the first stage in a process of conquest and colonization in the Americas that lasted more than 300 years, and whose effects remain readily apparent to the present day. Prior to the Spanish arrival, the four large and scores of smaller islands of the Caribbean were inhabited by a diversity of ethnolinguistic groups whose total numbers, by the best estimates, ran into the millions. The Taino (or Arawak) Indians constituted the dominant group in the Greater Antilles—Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico—while the Caribs, relative newcomers from the South American mainland, occupied many of the islands of the Lesser Antilles. Other groups inhabited different parts of the region, generating a complex mosaic of ethnolinguistic groups across the Caribbean in the centuries prior to the European arrival. Population estimates for the preconquest Caribbean vary widely. For Hispaniola, the first large island the Spanish encountered and subdued, scholarly estimates of precontact populations range from a low of 60,000 to a high of 8,000,000. Most estimates fall between 300,000 and 1,500,000, though it will never be known with any degree of precision how many people inhabited Hispaniola, or the Caribbean, or any other part of the Americas, before the European arrival. At the same time there is broad scholarly consensus that by the late 1400s the Caribbean, like the Americas as a whole, supported a large and growing indigenous population, a growth that was suddenly and irrevocably reversed by the European invasion. Genoese sailor Christopher Columbus, patronized by the Crown of Castile and Aragon (Spain), headed the expedition that inaugurated the modern encounter between the Old World and the New. His first landfall in the New World occurring on October 12, 1492, Columbus went on to skirt the shores of Cuba, Hispaniola, and other islands before beginning the journey back to Spain in mid-January 1493. Before departing he left a contingent of some 40 men on Hispaniola, at a fort called Navidad, to initiate the process of settlement. Convinced he had reached the East Indies, Columbus called the native inhabitants Indians, the name by which the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas have been called ever since. The six Taíno Indians, as well as the finely wrought native gold work, parrots, and other items that he took with him to the Spanish court, which he reached in March 1493, convinced the Crown to finance a second voyage, much larger than the first. Meanwhile, published versions of Columbus’s report to the Spanish Crown circulated quickly throughout much of Europe, beginning in Italy in April 1493. The effect was electrifying, as early modern Caribbean, conquest of the 65 Europe became aware of an entire world that hitherto had lain beyond their ken. The Spanish Crown required and sought the pope’s approval to engage in the process of settling unknown non-Christian lands and converting their non-Christian inhabitants to the Catholic faith. Pope Alexander VI responded to the Crown’s solicitation by issuing a series of papal bulls, most importantly the 1493 bull Inter Caetera, which divided the lands of the New World between Spain and Portugal. Soon after the Spanish and Portuguese agreed to a modified version of the bull, the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which became the basis for Spanish and Portuguese claims to the newly discovered lands of the Americas. Columbus’s second voyage to the Indies was much larger than his first, with 1,200 men (no women) in 17 ships carrying ample weaponry and at least six months’ worth of supplies. Making landfall in November 1493, the expedition claimed several islands in the Lesser Antilles before moving on to claim Puerto Rico (called Boriquén by its inhabitants) and returning to the Natividad garrison on the northern shore of Hispaniola. To the explorers’s chagrin, the garrison was in ashes and all of the 40 men dead, most probably killed by the island’s Taíno inhabitants. Hispaniola at the time was ruled by a series of chiefdoms ruled by Taíno caciques (chieftains), who had responded violently to the Spaniards’ violent efforts to acquire women for sexual liaisons and to force men to pan for gold in the island’s rivers. In response, Columbus sailed a few miles east along Hispaniola’s northern shore and established a new outpost called Isabela. Foraging parties into the interior returned with 30,000 ducats worth of gold—the most the island would ever yield. Retaining five ships and a strong contingent to protect the garrison, in February 1494 Columbus sent 12 ships back to Spain with instructions to return with more livestock, arms, medicines, and men. Leaving his younger brother Diego in charge of Isabela, Columbus sailed west, exploring the southern shore of Cuba, and Jamaica to the south, 66 Caribbean, conquest of the A print made in 1884 shows Christopher Columbus presenting his request to sail west to reach the East Indies to Queen Isabella I and Ferdinand V and a gathering of royal courtiers. before returning to Isabela in September 1494. In his absence, the colonists under Diego Columbus had enraged the island’s Taíno inhabitants by their violent efforts to secure their women and labor. Meanwhile Columbus had settled on the idea of enslaving the Indians, who would pan for gold and other precious metals in the islands and be sold as chattel in European markets. In February 1495, he approved the first shipment of some 500 Taíno to Spain to be sold as slaves. A month later, in the interior of Hispaniola, there occurred the first large-scale pitched battle between Spanish and Taíno forces. The Battle of Vega Real of March 1495 resulted in the Taínos’ total defeat, their slings and arrows proving no match for the Spaniards’ swords and armor. One of the defeated caciques, Caonabo, was put in chains and sent to Spain. He died en route and was buried at sea. A statue in his honor can be found in present-day Santo Domingo, where many remember him as the Americas’ first indigenous martyr against the European invasion. In the next few years, as news of Columbus’s discovery spread and as the Crown determined to subjugate the Indies, ships and men poured into the Caribbean. In 1495–96, the island of Hispaniola was completely subdued and its surviving inhabitants enslaved. The Crown soon replaced outright enslavement with the institution of encomienda, in which the Crown granted groups of Indians to individual encomenderos, who were said to hold them in encomienda, or “in trust.” The explorations continued through the late 1490s and into the 1500s. In 1508, the Crown’s attention shifted from Hispaniola to Cuba, where a major expedition of conquest was launched in 1511 under the leadership of Crown-designate Diego Velázquez. The invading Spaniards slaughtered thousands of native Arawak (or Sub-Taíno), Ciboney, and Mayarí. By 1515, the conquest of Cuba was complete. The conquest of the Caribbean thus took place in piecemeal fashion, with the Spanish “hopping” from one island to the next in their seaward march toward the west. By 1515, the native population of Hispaniola, Cuba, and other Caribbean islands had declined precipitously. In addition to warfare, violence, and forced labor, the principal cause of Indian deaths was their lack of biological immunity to European diseases, especially smallpox, as well as measles, bubonic plague, typhus, and cholera. By the 1550s, the indigenous inhabitants of the Caribbean had all but disappeared, only a few thousand surviving; by 1600, virtually all had died. The Caribbean islands, in turn, were used as launching-off points for further conquests in the Americas, beginning with the conquest of Mexico under Hernán Cortés in 1519–21. See also Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Boorstin, Daniel J. The Discoverers. New York: Penguin Books, 1983; Denevan, William E., ed. The Native Population of the Americas in 1492. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992; Dor-Ner, Zvi. Columbus and the Age of Discovery. New York: William Morrow & Company, 1991; Fuson, Robert H., trans. The Log of Christopher Columbus. Camden, ME: International Marine Publishing Co., 1987; Stannard, David E. American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Michael J. Schroeder Central America, conquest of The Spanish conquest of Central America ranks among the most violently destructive processes in world history. The combination of prolonged warfare, forced labor, enslavement, and disease decimated the indigenous population, which nonetheless survived and endured both the conquest and 300 years of colonial rule. The conquest profoundly affected every aspect of life across the isthmus. After consolidating their conquest of Hispaniola and establishing garrisons along the coast of Cuba in the 1490s, Spanish explorers began probing the coast of the Yucatán Peninsula and the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America. In 1509, the Spanish Crown granted two concessions for colonization of these unexplored lands. One was christened Nueva Andalusia, covering the territory east of the Gulf of Darién (at the junction of present-day Colombia and Panama). The second, Castilla de Oro, extended from the Gulf of Darién north to Cabo Gracias a Dios (at the modern Nicaragua-Honduras border). Initial forays along these coastal regions met with stiff native resistance, disease, hardship, and failure. These early Spanish encounters with the Caribbean littorals of Central and South America implanted virulent European diseases among the native inhabitants that quickly spread north, south, and west. Within a decade, smallpox and other pathogens were decimating the population of both the Andes and the Central American isthmus, years before Spaniards actually set foot in these areas. Weakening indigenous polities by causing precipitous demographic declines and generating profound cultural and political crises, the rapid spread of these highly contagious pathogens helped to make subsequent conquests possible. Central America, conquest of 67 The first Spanish successes in these regions were those of Vasco Núñez de Balboa, a minor nobleman, indebted farmer, and gifted military leader. Invading the Darién region, Balboa subdued numerous polities and accumulated considerable treasure before hacking his way across the Central American isthmus in Panama at the head of 190 Spaniards and numerous Indian porters and guides. On September 29, 1513, Balboa discovered the Pacific Ocean, which he dubbed the “South Sea.” By the late 1520s, Panama City, the settlement at the Pacific terminus of the land corridor through Panama, had become an important shipbuilding center and the launching-off point for subsequent expeditions of exploration and conquest, including the conquest of Peru. mosaic of groups Pre-Columbian Central America was populated by a mosaic of ethnic and linguistic groups divided politically into scores of kingdoms, city-states, and smaller polities. This political fragmentation was paralleled in subsequent divisions and conflicts among the Spanish, a key feature of the Central American and Peruvian conquests. These conflicts first erupted in 1519, when the conquistador Pedrarias Dávila executed Balboa after accusing him of treason. Establishing the settlement of Panama City the same year, Pedrarias was supplanted by royal orders by Gil González Dávila, who launched exploratory expeditions north into Costa Rica and Nicaragua, slaughtering and enslaving the native inhabitants. A key moment in these initial incursions came in 1522 along the shore of Lake Nicaragua, when Dávila convinced the Nicaráo cacique Nicaragua to submit to Spanish suzerainty and embrace Christianity. Soon afterward, the Chorotega cacique Diriangén assaulted and defeated Dávila’s forces, compelling his hasty retreat back to Panama. To this day, the opposite paths chosen by the caciques Nicaragua and Diriangén in response to Spanish demands—peaceful submission versus armed resistance— serve as symbolic counterpoints in discussions regarding Central America’s relations to more powerful adversaries. A bitter conflict soon arose between Pedrarias and Dávila, the latter refusing to relinquish his claims on the Nicaraguan territories. In 1524, Pedrarias’s subordinate Francisco Hernández de Córdoba returned to Nicaragua with a stronger force, determined to subjugate the region’s indigenous polities. Meeting initial success, he founded two towns, Granada and León. The next two years saw a series of civil wars erupt in Nicaragua between the competing conquistadores and their respective allies, as Dávila attacked Hernández and the latter rebelled against Pedrarias, who in turn defeated and executed Hernández. Meanwhile, with the conquest of Mexico consolidated, Hernán Cortés and his lieutenants turned their attention south. In 1523, Cortés dispatched Pedro de Alvarado south to the Guatemalan highlands. Deftly exploiting the political rupture between the Cakchiquel and Quiché kingdoms, much as Cortés had exploited indigenous divisions in Mexico, Alvarado allied with the Cakchiquel and defeated the Quiché in a series of battles and massacres. A legendary moment came in the Battle of Quetzaltenango of April 1524, when the combined Spanish-Cakchiquel force slaughtered the much larger Quiché army and Alvarado personally killed the Quiché chieftain Tecún Umán. Alvarado’s Guatemalan campaign was marked by a series of atrocities and outrages that later became memorialized in highland Indian oral and written culture. Soon after the Battle of Quetzaltenango, Alvarado captured and burned alive a large number of Quiché lords and nobles. Then, after using his Cakchiquel allies to defeat their enemies the Tz’utujils, Alvarado betrayed the Cakchiquels by executing their leaders and committing other atrocities. Surviving Cakchiquels fled into the mountains, where for four years they engaged in a guerrilla campaign against Alvarado’s forces. Relentlessly pursuing his erstwhile allies, Alvarado’s forces captured many rebel leaders and hanged them in the central plaza of the Cakchiquel capital of Iximché as an object lesson to other potential rebels. Alvarado then destroyed the capital city. These and related events were later recorded in a native manuscript, the Annals of the Cakchiquels. In the coming years, Alvarado, his lieutenants, and their successors continued their conquest of the highlands, committing many outrages and establishing the kingdom of Guatemala under the jurisdiction of New Spain. Soon after, Alvarado went on to become a leading figure in the conquest of Peru. The last autonomous polity in Guatemala to be subdued by the Spanish was the kingdom of Tayasal in the jungles of the Petén in 1697. It is estimated that warfare, forced labor, and disease during the first 50 years of the conquest killed more than onethird of Guatemala’s 2 million inhabitants. Alvarado’s forceful leadership in Guatemala effectively quelled incipient disputes among his men. This was not the case in the rest of Central America, where conflicts among Spaniards frequently erupted into open civil wars. In 1524, after dispatching a seaborne expedition under Cristóbal de Olid to the Gulf of Honduras, Cortés discovered that Olid had rebelled against his authority and allied with Cortés’s nemesis, Governor Diego Velázquez of Cuba. After sending Francisco de las Casas to relieve 68 Central America, conquest of Olid, Cortés marched overland hundreds of kilometers through the steamy jungles of Yucatán and the Petén to subdue Olid himself. The 19-month-long campaign was a disaster. When he finally reached Honduras, his forces thinned and exhausted, Cortés found that Las Casas and González had already vanquished and beheaded Olid. Despite a Mexican tribunal’s sentences of death, Cortés ensured that neither was punished for the act. civil wars From the 1520s to the 1550s, in short, much of Central America became a vast killing ground. Civil wars between rival conquistadores continued, while divisions and fractures among indigenous polities led the Spanish to adopt a piecemeal strategy, prolonging the process of conquest and the violence that accompanied it. Frustrated in their efforts to discover large caches of gold and other treasures and repeat the experience of Cortés in Mexico, the Spanish invaders turned to whatever marketable commodities from the region might turn a profit. In the late 1520s, gold was discovered in Nueva Segovia in north-central Nicaragua. The mines soon proved disappointing. By this time it had become apparent that the region’s most valuable marketable commodity was human labor. The slave trade thus became the most important pillar of Central America’s early colonial economy. Many indigenous peoples fled into the interior, joining other native groups that maintained stiff resistance against determined Spanish efforts to subdue them. What the Spanish called indios bravos (wild Indians) in the tropical mountains and jungles of eastern Nicaragua and pockets of Honduras, Guatemala, and elsewhere remained outside the orbit of Spanish control throughout the colonial period. Estimates for the Pre-Columbian population of Central America vary widely. By the best estimates, as many as 5 million people inhabited the isthmus before the Spanish arrival, with well over 1 million in western Nicaragua and southern Honduras. From 1528 to 1550, an estimated 400,000 to 500,000 indigenous inhabitants of this latter region were enslaved. Many died en route, the survivors shipped primarily to Panama and Peru. A report to the Crown of 1535 estimated that by that time approximately one-third of western Nicaragua’s Indians had been enslaved. The slave trade peaked between 1536 and 1540. In 1550, the practice was banned, by which time it had slowed to a trickle, for the simple reason that there remained few Indians left to enslave. By this time, warfare, forced labor, the slave trade, and diseases had reduced western Nicaragua’s indigenous population by around 90–95 percent. Following a larger pattern in the Americas—wherein lowland indigenous populations experienced more precipitous declines than highland populations—the highlands of Guatemala saw a lesser decline, but still of enormous magnitude. As elsewhere in the Americas, the Spanish intended that a spiritual conquest accompany the military conquest. Religious conversion of the natives was meant to be integral to their economic and political subjugation. In practice, the spiritual conquest was much more partial and incomplete than the military conquest, as many indigenous spiritual beliefs and practices survived for centuries beneath a veneer of Roman Catholicism. In sum, and by almost any measure, the Spanish conquest of Central America represents one of world history’s most destructive holocausts, one that bequeathed to subsequent generations across the region a legacy and social memory of violence that endure in various forms to the present day. See also Brazil, conquest and colonization of; Caribbean, conquest of the; sugarcane plantations in the Americas; voyages of discovery. Further reading: MacLeod, Murdo J. Spanish Central America: A Socioeconomic History, 1520–1720. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973; Newson, Linda A. Indian Survival in Colonial Nicaragua. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987; Recinos, Adrián, Delia Goetz, and Dionisio José Chona, trans. The Annals of the Cakchiquels. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958; Woodward, Ralph Lee, Jr. Central America: A Nation Divided, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Michael J. Schroeder Charles I (1600–1649) English monarch Charles I, the most tragic king of the House of Stuart, was born at Dunferline in Fifeshire in Scotland on November 19, 1600. Charles was the second son of James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark. When Charles was three, his father became king of England in March 1603, on the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the last from the House of Tudor. Charles became heir to the throne in 1612, when his elder brother Prince Henry died. In November 1616, he was made Prince of Wales, and thus first in line to succeed his father on what were now the combined thrones of England and Scotland. Charles I 69 On the death of his father, Charles became King Charles I on March 27, 1625. He almost immediately married Henrietta Maria, King Louis XIII’s sister. During this period, he became heavily influenced by George Villiers, duke of Buckingham. Villiers had also been a favorite of James I. Buckingham propelled England into a distastrous policy of foreign intervention that the economy of the country simply could not support. Buckingham was widely disliked, and although he was impeached by Parliament in 1628, he was killed before he could lead another failed international expedition. divine right of kings The main point of contention between Charles and the Parliament was his belief in the divine right of kings. His father, James I, had taught him that, as king, he was answerable only to God. Indeed, the impeachment of Buckingham by Parliament was as much a challenge to Charles’s belief in absolute royal authority as it was an attack on the king’s favorite courtier. While Parliament conceded that the king had a right to appoint his own government ministers, members of Parliament felt that Charles should govern with their advice and consent. Parliament attempted to use the voting of subsidies for the king’s government as leverage to gain such equality with the king in matters of governing the kingdom. Religion also became an issue. Although the country had been officially Protestant since the Act of Supremacy in 1534 established the king as the head of the Church of England, Charles’s queen, Henrietta Maria, carried out private Roman Catholic religious rites in the court. Even more, the king himself favored Catholicism rather than the Church of England, the religion of the state. Charles dissolved Parliament three times during his reign. He also imprisoned in the Tower of London his chief parliamentary opponent, Sir John Eliot, who died in the Tower in 1632. When Charles dismissed his fourth Parliament in March 1629, he played out his belief in the divine right of kings and ruled as the sole authority in England. He did not call another Parliament for 11 years. Deprived of subsidies voted by the other governing bodies, Charles depended on ship money, a royal levy first applied to towns that depended on maritime trade for their livelihood, but later extended to inland cities. Charles also sold monopolies, giving to royal favorites control of certain industries in return for funds, a thinly disguised attempt at royal influence peddling in return for financial gain. Charles’s attitude toward religion also became a political point of crisis. The archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, who governed the Church of England in the name of the king, was head of the “High Church Party,” which in effect was still similar in many ways to Roman Catholicism, more often than not referred to now in England as the Church of Rome, as distinguished from the Church of England. Laud and the king further affronted supporters of Parliament during the years of the king’s personal rule because the monarchy was turning more to bishops for counsel than to nobles. At the same time, the rise of Sir Thomas Wentworth, the earl of Strafford, was seen as another indication of the king’s belief in royal absolutism. Wentworth was appointed president of the Council of the North and was later to rule Ireland. Wentworth’s determination to rule in the king’s name had made a close friend of Archbishop Laud, but an army of enemies among those opposed to the king’s growing authoritarian rule. In the end, the crisis came in September 1639, when Archbishop Laud had attempted to impose his vision of the Church of England, with its Book of Common Prayer, on Scotland. reformation The Protestant reformation under john knox followed a different path in Scotland than it had in England. Scottish Presbyterianism was violently opposed to the Church of England’s neo-Catholic hierarchy and it was Laud’s ambition to impose the Church of England upon Scotland, supported by Wentworth and the king, that led the Scottish to assert their rights in defense of their Presbyterian Church in 1638. When an attempt to come to an agreement with the king failed at Glasgow, open rebellion broke out in Scotland in September 1639. Believing Scottish liberty to be under siege by Charles I, hundreds of veterans of the Thirty Years’ War flocked to the Scottish army. Wentworth advised Charles to summon Parliament to raise money for an army to defend England from a likely Scottish invasion. When Parliament was called in April 1640, its members, especially those in the House of Commons, quickly asserted Parliament’s right to share in the governing of England with the king. On May 5, 1640, Charles closed what became known in history as the Short Parliament. On his own again, Charles called Wentworth to northern England, where he attempted to raise an army to face the Scots. In response, the Scots crossed the historic boundary between England and Scotland, the River Tweed, in August 1640. By this time, an unspoken alliance united the Scottish Presbyterians with leading opponents of Charles’s absolutism in Parliament. 70 Charles I The Scottish invasion forced Charles to convene Parliament again in November 1640. Parliament, furious at Charles’s virtual dictatorship, struck back. Wentworth and Laud were brought before Parliament by an act of attainder, denied legal advice, and imprisoned. Wentworth was soon executed, in an act of parliamentary absolutism as strong as any that Charles had ever been accused of by Parliament. The crisis came to a head in October 1641, when the Irish Catholics rose up in bloody rebellion against the Protestants. Charles and the Parliament engaged in a back-and-forth battle of legislation, each attempting to bring the other under control. The unprecedented forced entry by Charles into Parliament in January 1642 brought to an end any hopes of compromise. Charles abandoned London to Parliament and raised the royal standard at Nottingham in August 1642, making Oxford the temporary royal capital. The first battle of what would be the English Civil War took place at Edgehill in October 1642, but was inconclusive. The earl of Essex withdrew his parliamentary forces after the battle, leaving the road to London open to Charles. But the king did not press his advantage, and Essex was soon able to gather reinforcements to block the way. In 1643 Parliament formed an alliance with the Scots against the king. Partly from exposure to the Scottish military tradition, Sir Thomas Fairfax began to form the New Model Army, perhaps the first truly professional force in British history. Oliver Cromwell, an English squire, emerged as the driving force behind the New Model, which scored decisive victories over the king at Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645). At last, Charles realized his cause was lost, and large-scale military operations ceased. Negotiations were entered into with Charles but rather than treat with Parliament in good faith, he urged on the Scots to attack again for a Second Civil War in 1647. In January 1649, Charles I was tried for treason by Parliament, with his alliance with the Scots one of the gravest of charges leveled against him. On January 30, 1649, Charles I was beheaded. See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Henry VII. Further reading: Ashley, Maurice. The Stuarts. Fraser, Antonia, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000; ———. A Brief History of British Kings and Queens. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2005; Fraser, Antonia, ed. The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. John Murphy Charles II (1630–1685) English monarch Charles II was born on May 29, 1630. His upbringing was tumultuous, given his father, King Charles I’s, power struggles with Parliament. As early as his teenage years, Charles II accompanied his father in military operations and was even put in command of some regiments. Charles I had previously sent his wife, Henrietta Maria, to France for safety, where she had received a warm welcome. She was the daughter of Henry IV, king of France and Navarre, and Marie de Médicis, of the ruling family of the city of Florence in Italy. Eventually, Charles I was imprisoned, tried for treason, and executed. Charles II then became the king of both England and Scotland. In June 1650, Charles arrived in Scotland, promising to recognize that the Presbyterian Church was the dominant sect in Scotland. The Scottish Covenanting Army under David Leslie was defeated by Oliver Cromwell, now virtually the ruler of England, at Dunbar in September 1650. A year later, determined to press his right to the throne, Charles and Leslie invaded England. Cromwell would ever after call his victory at Worcester his “crowning mercy.” For some 45 days, Charles remained in hiding before he could make his escape to France,. Cromwell ruled in England until his death, when his son, Richard, assumed the role. However, he was unable to muster public support and resigned in May 1659. Charles was called back to England, and he returned on his 30th birthday—May 29, 1660. Charles’s reign was seen by most as a welcome return to normality after the harsh Protectorate of Cromwell, who had eventually divided England up to be ruled by major-generals answerable only to him. Even the theaters had been closed because of strict Puritan morality—not to be opened again until Charles had become king. Determined to be a very different king than his father had been, Charles was careful to avoid the frictions over church and state that had cost his father so much. At home, he attempted to find some common ground between the Scots Covenanters and the Church of England. Although his efforts eventually ended in failure, he permitted on the whole both churches to follow the dictates of their own consciences. While his efforts at ecclesiastical reform did not meet his expectations, Charles’s relations with Parliament—his father’s sworn enemy—were much more fruitful. In 1665, growing commercial rivalry at sea led Parliament to encourage Charles to declare war on the Netherlands. While the British Navy was large, Charles II 71 the Dutch had more gifted commanders. To complicate matters further, Charles was distracted in the middle of the war by the Great Fire of London and the great plague of London and was unable to wage the war fully against the Dutch. A peace was reached in 1667, leaving conditions almost unchanged from before the war began. With an eye toward the future, Charles continued the program of modernizing the British fleet. revenge on the Dutch In 1670, Charles’s determination to have revenge on the Dutch led to the Treaty of Dover with Louis XIV, king of France, who would attack the Dutch in 1672. Charles, whose finances were subject to the approval of Parliament, agreed by the secret treaty to become a Catholic (he already had Catholic sympathies from his mother) and to support Louis in his coming war with the Dutch. Knowing nothing of his secret agreements, Parliament urged Charles to support the Dutch against the French. Charles, without actively going to war against his ally Louis, made peace with the Dutch at Westminster in 1674. With military matters settled, the question of the succession to the throne became a dominant concern of Charles. Lacking any legitimate heirs, the next in line to the throne was his brother James, the duke of York. James was a proven military leader, but unlike his brother, he was openly Roman Catholic. Consequently, the Protestants in Parliament moved to bar his succession to the throne. Two test acts, which involved allegiance to the Church of England, had already been passed to bar Roman Catholics from sitting in either house of Parliament, the House of Commons or the House of Lords. A “Popish Plot,” inflamed by an Anglican agitator named Titus Oates inflamed sentiments against the Catholics in 1678 and was one of the reasons that Charles dissolved Parliament in 1679, despite its having sat without interruption since he had come to the throne in 1660. Between 1679 and 1681, the struggle continued between the Parliament and the king. At about this time, the Rye House Plot was discovered, which included an apparent attempt to assassinate the king. Public sentiment veered toward the king again, and the last four years of Charles’s reign passed mostly uneventfully. A much-needed alliance with Parliament remained largely intact. When Charles II died on February 6, 1685, the people remembered him for his bright court life, his colorful mistresses, and the style that graced his reign. For the British, Charles II would always be remembered as the “Merry Monarch.” See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Medici family; Reformation, the. Further reading: Ashley, Maurice, and Antonia Fraser, eds. The Stuarts: The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999; Ashley, Mike. A Brief History of British Kings and Queens. New York: Carroll and Graaf, 2005; Fraser, Antonia. Charles II. London: Orion, 2004; ———. Cromwell. London: Grove Press, 2001; Howarth, David. British Sea Power: How Britain Became Sovereign of the Seas. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2005; Wedgwood, C. V. The King’s Peace, 1637–1641. London: Collins, 1977; ———. The King’s War, 1641–1647. London: Collins, 1977. John Murphy Charles V (Charles I of Spain) (1500–1558) Holy Roman Emperor, king of Spain Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire was the first monarch who was in the position to aspire to universal dominion. From his paternal grandfather, he stood to inherit the paternal domain of today’s Austria and South Tyrol, as well as claims to parts of Switzerland and southwest Germany. In addition, the Habsburgs had held the elected position of the Holy Roman Emperor (a collection of lands that included today’s Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, northern Italy, Switzerland, the central eastern part of France, and the Low Countries). Although the constituent lands of the Holy Roman Empire (mostly Germany and adjacent lands) were basically independent, the title held great prestige as it implied a primacy in Western Christendom. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 placed the Western Empire in a position of primacy in Europe. Charles’s inheritance from his paternal grandmother was also impressive. The House of Burgundy, although an offshoot of France, had amassed a whole series of lands that included the Netherlands and adjacent areas, such as the County of Burgundy (Franche-Comte) and Luxembourg. At that time, the Netherlands not only included the present-day countries of Holland and Belgium, but also much of northern France and parts of northern Germany. In many ways, it was the wealthiest country in Europe with textile products, crafts, commerce, and precapital financial processing, thereby making it a center of the European economy. 72 Charles V After the death of an older sister, Charles’s mother, Juana of Spain, became the heiress of the fabled Indies. From his grandmother, Isabella, Charles inherited the Crown of Castile, which comprised 60 percent of the Iberian Peninsula. More importantly, it included the title to the Indies, which turned out to be western South America, most of the present West Indies, Central America, and present-day Mexico, including parts of the present- day Southwest United States. From his maternal grandfather, he inherited the Crown of Aragon, about one-quarter of Iberia. Significantly, this included claim to Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, together about 40 percent of modern-day Italy. Charles inherited these territories at an early age. His father died in 1506, and soon thereafter, his mother was declared insane. His maternal grandfather and grandmother, Ferdinand V and Isabella I, passed away in 1515 and 1504, respectively, while his paternal grandfather, Maximilian, passed away in January 1519. far -fl ung government With these vast inheritances came vast responsibilities. All of Charles’s land possessions had separate governments that warranted consideration. Castile had separate governments not only in Granada, which had recently been conquered, but also overseas. The American possession was so vast that separate viceroyalties had to be set in Peru, New Spain (Mexico), and lesser jurisdictions in Colombia and Santo Domingo. In addition, Castilian claims to territories in North Africa included Ceuta and Melilla. Aragon also had its own separate parliaments, as did Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. The Netherlands had 18 separate jurisdictions in addition to Franche-Comte, as did the landgravate of Alsace and the Austrian possessions. While all of these could at least contribute to the exchequer, the Holy Roman Emperor was a title without much power. Germany also at this time was composed of 300 separate states. To complicate matters further, Charles faced the menace of the Turks under their greatest ruler, Suleiman I the Magnificent, who were advancing into the Balkans. He forced the Turks back after they invaded Austria in 1531, but much of the Balkans remained under Turkish control. Charles captured Tunis in 1535 and helped drive the Turks out of northern Africa temporarily. Among Charles’s greatest challenges was France and its monarchs, the Valois. The French, especially under Francis I (1515–47), resented his position in Europe and feared encirclement by Charles and his family, the Habsburgs. The French sought to regain Frenchspeaking sections of the Netherlands and wanted to gain power in Italy with claims to both Milan and Naples. The result was a series of wars between 1521 and 1559 between the French and Charles and his son, Philip II of Spain. In the end, the Spaniards remained supreme in Italy with Lombardy under their control, in addition to Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. The Protestant Reformation, which broke out in the German territory between 1517 and 1521, was another of Charles’s major challenges. The Reformation split Germany and prevented unity against the Turks and the French. After earlier successes, opposition that appeared in 1552 forced Charles to retreat as some of his allies—both Catholic and Protestant—felt he was too powerful. The resulting Peace of Augsburg froze existing section lines in place between Catholics and Protestants. In broad terms, Charles’s job was to preserve his inheritance. He tried to maintain his inheritance via marriage alliances and aiding his royal family, although he was not always successful. He tried to gain peace with France through the marriage of his widowed sister Eleanor to Francis I. On the other hand, he could not help his brother-in-law, Christian II of Denmark, who was deposed. And although he supported his aunt, Catherine, whose husband, Henry VIII, divorced her, he could not stop the divorce. More successfully, after his sister’s husband, Louis of Hungary, perished at Mohácz in 1526, he arranged a marriage of his brother Ferdinand to Anne of Hungary, which led to the annexation of Czech territories and that part of Hungary not conquered by the Turks. His own marriage to Isabella of Portugal led to the annexation of that country in 1580 when the last male heir of the royal house of Portugal died. Ultimately Charles realized that his empire, lacking real cultural or administrative unity, could not be sustained. Realizing that his health was failing (he had gout and dropsy), he handed over his Spanish, Italian, and Netherlands possessions to his son, Philip II, in October 1556, and his Austrian lands and Holy Roman Emperor title to his brother Ferdinand I. He died two years later. Although not a brilliant ruler, Charles accomplished his goal of maintaining his empire so as to pass it on to his heirs. Further reading: Brandi, Fernand. The Emperor Charles V. London: Oxford University Press, 1965; Elliot, J. H. Imperial Spain. London: Oxford University Press, 1961; Prescott, W. H. History of the Reign of Charles. London: Routledge, 1888; Charles V 73 Rodriquez-Salgado, M. J. The Changing Face of Empire: Charles V, Philip II, and Habsburg Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988; Tyler, Royall. The Emperor Charles the Fifth. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. Norman C. Rothman Chilam Balam, books of The sacred books of the Maya of Yucatán, the books of Chilam Balam were written in the Mayan language in Mexico in the 17th and 18th centuries. They supposedly contain the secrets of the Mayan civilization. They are a major source for contemporary knowledge of Mayan religion, history, folklore, medicine, and astronomy. Historians believe that once the books of Chilam Balam collection held many more books, although only a handful, named for the towns in which they were written, have survived. Most important among the remaining books of Chilam Balam are Mani, Tizimin, Chumayel, Kaua, Ixil, Tusik, and Codice Perez. The books of Chilam Balam is named after the last and greatest Mayan prophet, Chilam, or chilan, meaning the mouthpiece or interpreter of the gods. Balam means jaguar, but it is also a common family name in Yucatán. The title of the present work could be translated as the Book of the Prophet Balam, who lived during the last decades of the 15th century and foretold the arrival of strangers from the east who would establish a new religion. The prophecy came to pass and established the prophet Balam as the authority for many other prophecies in the older books of the same kind, so the Maya named the other books after Balam. hieroglyphic writing system The Maya developed a complex system of hieroglyphic writing to record astronomical observations, calendar calculations, and historical and genealogical information centuries before the Spanish conquest. To the Maya, the written word had sacred significance and the priests were the only members of the community who wrote. Texts were considered divine objects, containing the religious and moral principles of the community, the path of the truth, and the example of ancestors and prescriptions of the gods. Priests read the sacred books during religious ceremonies imbuing the community with the meaning of its existence. A party of shipwrecked sailors who landed in Yucatán in 1511 was the first group of Spaniards to encounter the Maya. In the next 150 years, expeditions of Francisco de Córdoba, Francisco de Montejo, and Pedro de Alvardo extended Spanish domination of Maya territory. Finally Martín de Ursúa, the Spanish governor of Yucatán, completed Spanish domination of the entire Maya region in 1697 when he conquered the small group of Maya in the central Petén area. The Spanish brought European diseases against which the Maya had no natural immunity; consequently many of them died. The Spanish also killed many Maya in battle and forced the survivors to labor on Spanish farms or in gold and silver mines. Among the Spaniards’ goals was eradicating Mayan language and culture. The Catholic Church of 16th-century Mexico sought to educate and to evangelize. Shortly after the Spanish conquest of the Maya, Spanish monks and friars learned the Mayan language for evangelical purposes and adapted the Latin alphabet to Maya, improvising when necessary to include sounds foreign to the Romance languages. Spanish monks and friars wrote the books of Chilam Balam in the Mayan language, but used European script instead of Mayan hieroglyphs. Each book is a self-contained library covering a vast array of subjects. Besides the prophecies there are brief chronicles, fragmentary historical narratives, rituals, native catechisms, mythological accounts of the creation of the world, almanacs, and medical treatises. The Spanish friars and the Maya undoubtedly transcribed some of the material from older hieroglyphic manuscripts that still existed in northern Yucatán at the close of the 17th century. As time passed, more European material was added to the native Mayan lore. In some books, there are a mixture of the old faith with Christianity and translations of Spanish religious tracts and astrological treatises into Maya as well as notes of events occurring during the colonial period. Part of a Spanish romance translated into Mayan is found in two of the books. The Spanish grudgingly admired the Mayan graphic system, but they were determined to destroy the old manuscripts and erase all knowledge of the hieroglyphs from the minds of the converts. For their part, the Maya revered their hieroglyphic writing, which symbolized their old religion. The Spanish intended their new, improved version of the Mayan language for Christian use only, but the Maya quickly adapted it to their own purposes. They recorded everything from prophecies and rituals to petitions to the Crown, but the books of Chilam Balam were the most important 74 Chilam Balam, books of manuscripts that the Mayans recorded in the century after the conquest. Shaped by the dominant Spanish culture, they contain much information about life in colonial Yucatán, but basically reflect the religious and mythological traditions of the Maya. The Maya and the Spanish produced two categories of books during this time of transition and translation. The Spanish authorities often solicited books written for legal purposes, and the second type were written as new sacred literature of the communities. The first type of books served to secure privileges such as reducing tributes and conserving ancestral lands. The authors tried to please the Spanish authorities, by demonstrating that they had assimilated the teachings of the friars and endeavoring to prove that they had embraced the doctrines of Christianity instead of the stories of their own past. Books in the second category, new sacred literature of the communities, were written out of the desire of the Maya to reclaim the truth of their religion and their customs that the Spanish had invalidated. New sacred books were written to replace the ancient codices and they reproduced the myths of the gods and the history of the Maya ancestors as well as recording the oral traditions passed down from father to son. They also recorded the explanations that the old priests gave of the codices. These new books did not serve any legal purpose, but were designated to be read in native community ceremonies as sources of songs and dances and rituals of prehistoric tradition. The impetus for writing the new books in the Mayan language, using the writing that the Spanish taught, spread across the entire Yucatán peninsula and the entire Mayan area. Although the style of the Yucatán books is different from the style of the Guatemala books, the structure and contents of all of the books faithfully preserve the religious traditions and the memory of the past. All of them represent the moment in Mayan time when the Spanish conquered them and imposed a new religious, social, political, and economic way of life on them while reducing them to servitude in their own homelands. Many of the old Mayan communities have preserved the books, some secretly. The Maya had to hide some of these books that contained ancient spiritual rituals, because the Spaniards pursued and killed those who performed and participated in the rituals, considering them demonic. Families closely guarded these books and passed them down from father to son. The existence of these books did not become known until the 18th century, when scholars discovered them. The most important of these books were the Popol Vuh of the Quiches, the Memorial de Solola of the Cakchiqueles, and the Libros de Chilam Balam of the Yucatán Mayans. The majority of the texts of the books of Chilam Balam are religious, describing individual parts of cosmological myths without a discernable connection between them. Others are ritual texts, prophesies of the Katunes, symbolic formulas of religious initiations, calendar and astronomical texts, and historical descriptions about the main groups of Yucatán and the Spanish conquest. The work ends with the famous prophesies about the arrival of a new religion, attributed to Chilam Balam and other prophets. The myths and prophesies are written in archaic, symbolic language, using metaphors, colors, and natural beings to express ideas. The authors use cryptic language and secret texts and as in many sacred books there are parallels, repetition of the same thought in different terms, and numberings that give the texts a rhythm that allows them to be recited or sung. The books of Chilam Balam were written on European paper and bound in notebooks, some with cowhide covers. The existing versions of the books of Chilam Balam are not the 16th century originals, but are copies of copies made in the last part of the 17th and 18th centuries. Origins Historians surmise that the Chilam Balam de Chumayel originates in Chumayel, a district of Texhax, Yucatán, and that the compiler was a native of Yucatán named Juan José Hoil. His name appears on page 81 of the manuscript next to the date listed as January 20, 1782. Later, other people integrated other texts and Justo Balam, the secretary of Jose Hoil, next owned the book. He wrote two baptismal registrations on one of the blank pages of the book in 1832 and 1833. During the following decades, the book of Chumayel passed through several hands and in 1868, Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt copied it by hand and Daniel Brinton published fragments of it in his work Maya Chronicles. In 1910, George B. Gordon, director of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, made a photographic reproduction and edited it in a facsimile form in 1913. Juan Martínez Hernández published a translation in Spanish from these chronicles and from other fragments of the book in 1912, 1913, 1927, and 1928. Antonio Mediz Bolio did the first complete Spanish translation of the books of Chilam Balam, which the Repertorio Americano edited in Costa Rica in 1930. Ralph L. Roys translated the second complete version into English, edited by the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1933. Alfredo Barrera Vásquez and Silvia Rendon included various fragments in their version of the Libros de Chilam Balam in 1938, and the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Chilam Balam, books of 75 Mexico edited the version of Mediz Bolio in the Biblioteca del studiante Universitario in 1941. In 1952 and 1973, the second and third editions were published. The same version was reedited in 1980, in the anthology titled Literatura Maya, prepared by Mercedes de la Garza for the Biblioteca Ayacucho, of Caracas, Venezuela. See also Yucatán, conquest of the. Further reading: Echerarria, Roberto Gonzalez, and Enrrqua Pruo-Walker. The Cambridge History of Latin American Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Foster, David Willran, ed. Mexican Literature: A History. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994; Freidel, David, and Linda Schele. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Mayan. New York: Harper Collins, 1990; Portilk, Miguel Lelon, and Earl Shorris. In the Language of Kings: An Anthology of Mesoamerican Literature-Pre Columbian to the Present. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001; Restall, Matthew. Maya Conquistador. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998. Ron Young Christian century in Japan Francis Xavier, a founder of the Society of Jesus, arrived in Japan in 1549, inaugurating a century of Catholic Christian missionary activity in that country. After enjoying enormous success, Christians suffered brutal persecution and were almost eliminated a century later. Japan was ruled by warring feudal lords in the mid- 16th century who sought to wrest power from the failing Ashikaga Shogunate. These lords eagerly welcomed the newly arrived Portuguese to their domains in order to purchase European firearms. Observing the respect the Portuguese merchants showed toward Catholic priests, many Japanese lords converted to the new faith and ordered their subjects to convert also. Some Japanese even mistakenly thought that Christianity was a variant form of Buddhism. Jesuit missionaries came under the protection of the Portuguese Crown and were soon joined by the Franciscans, who came via Spain’s colony the Philippines and were under the protection of Spain. The southern island of Kyushu as well as the imperial capital Kyoto became centers of Christian missionary activity. Japan became the most successful area of Christian conversion in Asia. By 1582, an estimated 150,000 had become Christians, with the number rising to 300,000 by the century’s end, and 500,000 at its height in 1615. Christian missionaries were welcomed as allies by Japan’s first aspiring unifier, Oda Nobunaga (1534–82), in his military confrontation with powerful Buddhist sects. Oda destroyed his formidable Buddhist opponents and their castles, but was assassinated. He was followed by Hideyoshi Toyotomi (1536–98), who continued the wars of unification. Hideyoshi was ambivalent toward Westerners, on the one hand welcoming their trade. He also feared their influence, both the authority of the pope and Spain’s colonial ambitions, which had made the Philippines a colony. Thus he banned all missionary activities in 1587, but did not enforce the law until 1597, when he ordered nine missionaries and 17 Japanese Christians executed. Hideyoshi died in 1598. Another succession struggle ensued until another nobleman, Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542–1616), won a definitive battle in 1603, after which he was confirmed shogun by the emperor, thus inaugurating the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603–1868). The newly victorious and as yet insecure Tokugawa Ieyasu regarded Christians as potentially subversive and began to move against them in 1606. His son and successor continued his policies, expelling missionaries and ordering noblemen and ordinary people in his domain to renounce Christianity; he went so far as to execute those who remained Christian clandestinely. The shogunate then forced all lords throughout Japan to conform to anti-Christian laws. Suspected Christians were forced to trample on the cross or other Christian symbols while those who refused were tortured to death. Persecution climaxed in 1637–38 when oppressed Christian peasants revolted in western Kyushu. They were put down and slaughtered. A law in 1640 compelled all Japanese to register at a local Buddhist temple. Christianity was wiped out in Japan except for a few small underground communities. The Catholic Church recognized 3,125 Japanese martyrs between 1597 and 1660, several of whom were beatified by Pope John Paul II. The Tokugawa Shogunate enacted other laws that banned trade with Europeans except for two Dutch ships annually and took other measures that almost totally isolated Japan from the Western world until 1854. Thus between 1549 and 1640, Japan presented the paradoxical picture of success and then total prohibition of the Christian missionary movement. See also Bushido, Tokugawa period in Japan; Jesuits in Asia; Tokugawa bakuhan system, Japan. Further reading: Berry, Mary Elizabeth. Hideyoshi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982; Boxer, C. R. The Christian Century in Japan, 1549–1650. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967; Elison, George. Deus Destroyed: The Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974; Ooms, 76 Christian century in Japan Herman. Tokugawa Ideology: Early Constructs, 1570–1680. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Christina Vasa (1626–1689) Swedish monarch Christina was born on December 8, 1626, in Stockholm as the only legitimate child of King Gustavus Adolphus (1594–1632) and his wife, Maria Eleanor of Brandenburg. She was mistakenly thought to be a boy at her birth; consequently Gustavus Adolphus had her raised as a boy. Her mother, who had suffered numerous miscarriages and desperately wanted a son, repudiated Christina at birth because she was a female and “ugly.” The masculine-looking Christina was trapped in a female body, causing her difficulty throughout her life. Gustavus insisted on raising her as a prince. He died as a martyr for Protestantism at the Battle of Lutzen on November 6, 1632, when Christina was six years old. Christina was tutored by the liberal-minded Bishop Johannes Matthiae Gothus (1592–1670), her father’s court chaplain, and received a male rather than a female oriented education. He taught Christina religion, history, and classical languages and considered her a brilliant student. Axel Oxenstierna (1583–1659), Sweden’s powerful statesman, taught her political statesmanship. She grew up to be extravagant, with a restless and whimsical nature and aspirations toward intellectual pursuits rather than governance. She was egotistical, considering herself superior to those beneath her. Having received a masculine upbringing, Christina adamantly refused to accept the traditional feminine role expected of her. She was determined to follow her own path and ignored criticism about her actions. Christina’s 12-year regency consisted of five guardians, headed by Chancellor Oxenstierna. Christina was crowned in 1644 at age 18. She was a very accomplished and astute businesswoman, perhaps the most capable woman of her era. And although she had a strong sense of purpose, she was not suited to be a monarch. The willful, eccentric Christina decided never to marry because of her aversion to sexual contact and to avoid the restrictions submission to a male would place on her. Her advisers wanted her to marry the prince of the Palatinate, Charles X Gustavus (1622–60), her cousin and dearest childhood friend. Despite the wishes of the Privy Council and Oxenstierna, Christina forcefully declined. She had the Riksdag (parliament) name Charles X Gustavus as her eventual successor in 1649 and he became a hereditary prince of the realm in 1650. Christina was intent on focusing her attention on the sciences and on peace. She impulsively ended the war with Denmark and obtained territory for Sweden at the 1645 Brömsebo Treaty. She went against the advice of Oxenstierna at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 at the conclusion of the Thirty Years’ War and followed her own ideas. Although Sweden received Gotland and Saaremaa, some counties in Norway, and authority over Estonia, it lost control over the lucrative Polish ports. However, huge reparations were to be paid by the Catholic German states and at the conclusion of the war most of the Baltic Sea trade belonged to Sweden. Christina caused considerable internal discord in Sweden with her obstinate eccentricities and reckless extravagance. She squandered Crown property and created noble positions that led to dissension and revolt. She gave unwarranted distinction to the unworthy and caused difficulties for her realm with her arbitrary manners. A split developed with the old ministers, some of whom were extremely loyal and had worked well with her father, on one side, and the people who benefited from her largesse on the other. On the positive side, Christina gave towns new privileges. She instigated enormous trade and created manufacturing industries. She initiated Sweden’s first school ordinance in 1649. She lionized the arts and sciences and encouraged countless institutes with her patronage, and she attracted great luminaries to her court such as the revered scholars Hugo Grotius and René Descartes, with whom she conversed as equals. Tired of the minutiae associated with governance, in 1651 Christina decided to abdicate but was persuaded to stay. She thereafter firmly focused primarily on philosophy, art, and religion. Although her actions after 1651 indicated she no longer had much interest in Sweden, it was her distaste for Lutheranism that lay behind her grievance about governing. The Pact of Succession of 1544 made it illegal for any Swedish monarch not to be Lutheran, but she refused to practice a faith she abhorred. The restraints against her caused Christina to abdicate in 1654. She renounced the Crown in Uppsala Castle on June 6, 1654. She gave herself an income and complete independence with complete power over her household, and her cousin Charles X Gustavus succeeded her. She converted to Roman Catholicism in Innsbruck and was confirmed by Pope Alexander VII (1599–1667) in Rome, who deemed it a great coup for Catholicism. She was renamed Maria Christina Alexandra. He granted her a grandiose apartment in the Christina Vasa 77 Vatican. Christina’s personal appearance and masculine manners were berated during her visit to France in 1646, but she was admired for her intellect. She had her grand equerry Giovanni Monaldeschi executed in 1657; he had betrayed her plans to take over the throne of Naples, a plan that ultimately failed. She was quickly removed from France and temporarily lost the support of Pope Alexander. When Charles X Gustavus died in 1660, Christina visited Sweden, pretending to arrange her personal affairs but in reality trying to reclaim the throne intended for Crown Prince Charles XI (1655–97). The Swedes rejected Christina and forced her to sign a formal abdication agreement. A second attempt to recover the throne failed in 1667. Her endeavor to obtain the Polish throne was rejected, along with her numerous other intrigues. Resigned, Christina moved to Rome permanently and pursued her literary, artistic, and scientific interests. Her salons made her the center of Roman society. Christina died in Rome on April 19, 1689. She was buried in St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Her huge library was donated to the papacy. See also Luther, Martin; Reformation, the. Further reading: Åkerman, Susanna. Queen Christina of Sweden and Her Circle: The Transformation of a Seventeenth Century Philosophical Libertine. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991; Buckley, Victoria. Christina, Queen of Sweden: The Restless Life of a European Eccentric. New York: Fourth Estate, 2004; Mackenzie, Faith Compton. The Sibyl of the North: The Life of Christina, Queen of Sweden. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1930; Garstein, Oscar. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia: The Age of Gustavus Adolphus and Queen Christina, 1622–1656. New York: E. J. Brill, 1992. Annette Richardson Church of England The Church of England was the national and reformed church established and amended by parliamentary statutes during the English Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries. Its institutions included Governorship in the Monarchy, Prelateship in the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the threefold episcopal ministry: bishops, priests, and deacons. Its theological doctrines and liturgies sought to absorb truths from the Bible, the early Christian tradition, and reason, and to comprehend Catholic, humanist, and reformed elements of the time. The Church of England was not a theocracy, because in these two centuries, the legislative authority belonged to “King in Parliament.” The Church of England was established in 1534 by the parliamentary Act of Supremacy, which recognized Henry VIII (r. 1509–47) as the “only supreme head on earth” of the Church of England, or the Anglican Church. The Reformation Parliament (1529–36) abrogated papal authority and declared royal supremacy, but made no attempt theologically or liturgically to break with the Catholic past. Rather, the Six Articles enacted by the Parliament of 1539 reiterated Catholic teachings and practices and put a check on the spread of the embryonic Protestantism in England. The ambiguities left from the reforms were tested after Henry VIII’s death. Under Edward VI (r. 1547– 53), antipapal rhetoric increased, the apparatus of worship became simplified, and the Parliament reformed the Church of England to meet Calvinist essentials. Then, Queen Mary I (r. 1553–58) restored Catholicism, persecuted Calvinist heretics, and pushed her Protestant subjects into exile, or confined their worship in rural cells. Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603) undertook the precarious task of reconstructing the Church of England according to Henry VIII’s blueprint and simultaneously finding a satisfactory settlement for the great majority of her subjects. In 1559, her first Parliament enacted a new Act of Supremacy, which established her, using a slightly softer tone than her father’s, as the “supreme governor” of the Church of England. Despite the political independence from the papal authority, the church remained administratively and judicially the same. The convocations of Canterbury and York survived. The diocesan hierarchy and administrative systems continued. The church courts, the ecclesiastic laws, and judicial proceedings followed basically medieval precedents and routines. Under the queen, one novel practice was to require Anglican clergy to take an oath of allegiance to the queen, as all her civil servants did. In 1563, Parliament sanctioned the Thirty-Nine Articles. In 1571, under the queen’s personal instruction, a slightly altered version was approved by the convocation of the Church of England and was printed as an appendix to the Book of Common Prayer, a revision of Thomas Cranmer’s book of the same title issued originally in 1549. While the Articles and the Book adopted some of the Protestant theological teachings and liturgical regulations (especially in the administration of baptism and Holy Communion) into the Church of England, they held firmly royal supremacy as the church’s 78 Church of England foundation and episcopacy as its government. The Book served as the textbook, compelling local people to weekly church attendance and other services in liturgical uniformity and in the English vernacular, which managed to mask the differences between Catholic and Calvinistic followers within the church. Although the queen’s sincere and meticulous compromise won the people’s broad acceptance, she could not pacify ardent opposition to her settlement. Neither was she able to persuade all her subjects to conform to the national and reformed church required by the Act of Uniformity of 1559. The Marian bishops and their followers adamantly rejected her breach with Rome and her governorship of the church. After Pope Pius VI issued a bull in 1570 deposing her and absolving her Catholic subjects from allegiance, a series of plots were carried out against her life, including one led by her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1586. At the same time, radical Calvinists refused to conform to the Church of England because of their resentment of its episcopal structure. To a great extent, the Catholic conspiracies confirmed the Calvinist conviction that the Church of England had to be purified of the accreted institutions, doctrines, and liturgies inherited from medieval Catholicism. King james bible In the 17th century, both the popish plots, real or imagined, and radical movements of the Puritans would test the vitality of the Elizabethan Church of England. At the Hampton Court conference of 1604, the first Stuart king, James I (r. 1603–25), met his Puritan subjects to receive their petition for purifying the Catholic remnants from the Church of England. The king commissioned a panel of 54 to produce an authorized English Bible. The so-called James I Version was finished in 1611, and the Church of England began to have its own standardized book for centuries to come. However, at the same conference, the king was displeased by the demands of the Puritan nonconformists to reform the episcopacy, and later responded to it with his succinct statement “No bishop, no king.” Afterward, the Gunpowder Plot by Catholic extremists, aiming at blowing up all of royalty at the opening session of Parliament of 1605, further inflamed anti-Catholic sentiment in England, and helped the Puritan cause to gain growing support from its popular base. The leading Puritan parliamentarians under King Charles I (r. 1625–49) became infuriated when the king refused to transform the Church of England toward congregational structure, and they linked the episcopal structure of the church to the king’s personal tyranny. civil war Although the Puritans’ frustration alone might not have caused the breakout of the Civil War in 1642, the uncompromising antipapal and antiepiscopal attitude of the Puritan politicians and military men undoubtedly shaped the fate of England and its church in the next 20 years. After the regicide of 1649, General Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan providentialist and a pragmatic politician, was forced to suppress his fellow Puritan extremists, the levellers and the followers of the fifth monarchism, in order to preserve the episcopal organization in his Puritan- styled Church of England. During the Restoration (1660–88), endeavors were made among different religious leaders to find a new settlement, but King Charles II (r. 1660–85) and the Anglicans now in power refused to recognize the nonconformists who had been previously ordained to serve in their congregations. The king expelled about 2,000 of them from the church after they refused to pass the test, defined by the Act of Test of 1673 as taking oaths of allegiance and receiving Holy Communion in the Church of England. The national church became schismatic, and the specter of the Civil War loomed. When the nation faced a very real possibility of the restoration of Roman Catholicism under James II (r. 1685–88), Parliament met in 1688 to contemplate how to contend with the crisis. In Parliament, the majority of the Tories supported royal authority, but cared about the future of the Church of England more than King James II; the Whigs favored parliamentary supremacy, but were willing to work with the Tories in order to prevent Catholic resurgence. After suffering military defeats at the hand of the king’s opponents, James II abandoned the throne and fled to France at the end of 1688. In 1689, Parliament offered the Crown jointly to Mary (r. 1689–94), the Anglican daughter of James I, and her husband, William III (r. 1689–1702), the Calvinist duke of Orange. In the same year, Parliament required William and Mary to accept the Bill of Rights, which was designed to guarantee the members of Parliament freedom of speech and immunity from prosecution for their opinions presented in parliamentary debates. In 1689, the Parliament also adopted the Toleration Act, which offered some freedom of worship to the nonconformist Protestants; their right to hold public offices, however, was still technically restricted by the Act of Test of 1673, which would be finally repealed in 1828. But the Catholics did not gain religious freedom until 1829. Political and religious struggles continued to disrupt the English life from the Glorious Revolution in England to the succession of the first Hanoverian king, George I (r. 1714–27), when the restoration of Church of England 79 Catholicism became not only barred by law but also less and less realistic. However, the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 was the great landmark in the history of the Church of England. In general, the religious strife and bloodshed that had troubled England for more than a century began to subside, and the national and reformed church began to operate within the Elizabethan framework of the church constitution. Moreover, the church spread throughout the British Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries, and hundreds of episcopacies all over the empire lived under the governorship of English monarchs. Today, the Church of England is still the religion of the English monarchy but no longer enjoys any privileges over other religions in the British parliamentary democracy. The archbishop of Canterbury, as St. Augustine’s successor, is honored as the universal primate among the Episcopalian believers in more than 400 dioceses all around the world, but he exercises no authority over them. At the same time, the church is currently playing an important role in women’s ordination, Christian ecumenical dialogue, and interfaith communications among world religions. See also Bible translations; Calvin, John; Luther, Martin. Further reading: Block, Joseph S. Factional Politics and the English Reformation, 1520–1540. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 1993; Dickens, Arthur G. The English Reformation. London: Batsford, 1989; Hirst, Derek. Authority and Conflict: England 1603–1658. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986; Jones, Norman L. Faith by Statute: Parliament and the Settlement of Religion, 1559. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1982; Kishlansky, Mark A. A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714. New York: Penguin Books, 1997; Speck, William A. Reluctant Revolutionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Wenxi Liu Clement VII (1478–1534) pope from the Medici family Pope Clement VII was born in 1478 as Giulio de Medici and died on September 22, 1534, in Rome. He was a member of the powerful Florentine de’ Medici family. In his youth he was educated by his uncle, the powerful Lorenzo the Magnificent. Another uncle, Pope Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici), made him cardinal on September 28, 1513. Because of his family’s control over much of the politics of northern Italy, he was one of the favorite candidates for pope in the next conclave, but he was not elected to the papacy until November 18, 1523. During his reign as pope, Clement was heavily involved in the conflict between French king Francis I and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Clement took the side of the French and organized the League of Cognac of France, Venice, and Florence on May 22, 1526. On Italian soil Clement was thrown into an ongoing territorial conflict with the city-state of Colonna, which had for years been invading the Papal States. On September 20, 1526, Clement was shut up in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo while the Vatican was plundered by Colonna soldiers. German Lutheran soldiers also sacked Rome during his pontificate, possibly with the blessings of the Holy Roman Emperor. A treaty with Charles V in February 1530 brought peace once again to Italy, a peace that did not last long. Clement VII is best known as the pope who denied the divorce of Henry VIII, king of England, and Queen Catherine of Aragon and denied the validity of the marriage of Henry to Anne Boleyn. Clement eventually excommunicated the king and the English Reformation ensued. Clement helped support the Capuchin reform of the Order of St. Francis of Assisi and Westminster Abbey, one of England’s most celebrated buildings, is also home to the Church of England. 80 Clement VII continued the patronage of the great artists Michelangelo and Raphael Santi. Clement was the pope who ordered the painting of the great fresco of the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel. See also Holy Roman Empire. Further reading: Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002; Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. Chronicles of the Popes: A Reign-byreign Record of the Papacy from St. Peter to the Present. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1997; Pham, John-Peter. Heirs of the Fisherman: Behind the Scenes of Papal Death and Succession. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; Reardon, Wendy J. The Deaths of the Popes: Comprehensive Accounts, Including Funerals, Burial Places, and Epitaphs. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2004. James Russell Clive, Robert (1725–1774) British empire builder Robert Clive went to India as a clerk of the British East India Company. Through daring and ability he was instrumental in defeating the French and their Indian allies. He consolidated British power in Bengal in the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and twice served as governor of Bengal. The English (later British) East India Company was established in 1600, the French East India Company in 1664. The goal of both was to establish trading stations in India, and neither harbored territorial goals until after Emperor Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, when the Mughal Empire began to disintegrate. The French governor-general at Pondicherry (the leading French trading station in India) Joseph Dupleix (1697– 1764) was first to make alliances with native rulers and train Indian soldiers (called sepoys) under French command and with European firearms. Through these means Dupleix gained land and influence for France. Significantly Dupleix’s forces captured the British Fort St. George (Madras) in 1746 and took Robert Clive, a clerk recently arrived from England, prisoner. Clive escaped, took a commission in the British East India Company’s army, and in a brilliant maneuver, defeated the forces of the ruler of Hyderabad, France’s major ally in the Deccan, and captured an important port called Arcot against great odds. As a result Dupleix was recalled to France in disgrace. Clive then took a page from Dupleix’s book and began to train sepoys. In 1756, the new Mughal governor of Bengal, Sirajud- Daula, sent an army against the British trading settlement at Calcutta. Most of the 146 English men and women who could not flee died in a dungeon in which they were imprisoned. This episode, called “The Black Hole of Calcutta,” gave Clive the pretext he needed for expanding British power in Bengal. He recaptured Calcutta and with a small force of 1,000 Europeans and 2,000 sepoys and eight pieces of artillery decisively defeated Siraj-ud-Daula’s 35,000 infantry, 15,000 cavalry, and 50 cannons manned by Frenchmen, with only 22 Europeans killed and 49 wounded. This was the famous Battle of Plassey, after which Clive made a pro-British Indian governor of Bengal under his tutelage until he returned to England in 1760. In recognition the British government ennobled him as Baron Clive of Plassey. Britain and France were once again enemies between 1756 and 1763 during the Seven Years’ War when Britain’s superior navy blocked French reinforcements from reaching India. In 1761, Britain captured Pondicherry, finally ending French imperial aspiration in India. Clive returned to India in 1765 as governor of Bengal to settle problems that had arisen since his departure. He made an agreement with the now very weak Mughal emperor whereby the British East India Company was made revenue administrator for the provinces of Bihar and Bengal, making it de facto territorial ruler of this huge Indian territory. After organizing the administration of Bengal, Clive returned to Britain in 1767. He faced a parliamentary inquiry instigated by his enemies for corruption while in India but was exonerated. Depressed by the charges, he committed suicide in 1774. Clive’s was a remarkable career of empire building. He played a crucial role in the elimination of France from India and set the stage for the British Empire on the subcontinent. For this reason he is called Clive of India. Further reading: Bence-Jones, Mark. Clive of India. London: Constable and Company, 1974; Chaudhuri, K. N. The Trading World of Asia and the East India Company, 1600–1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur coca Coca (family Erythroxylaceae) is the generic name for several varieties of shrub that grow in the Andean mountains and adjacent tropical forests from whose leaves cocaine is derived. Archaeological evidence from the coca 81 Valdivia culture of southwestern Ecuador and elsewhere, including small ceramic figurines and containers, indicates that coca cultivation and chewing date back to at least 2500 b.c.e., making it likely that coca was among the first plants cultivated by the indigenous peoples of South America. Known today as the gran remedio (great remedy), the plant’s small fleshy leaves are chewed, producing a mild narcotic effect that diminishes hunger and fatigue and produces an overall sense of well-being. Traditionally viewed as a sacred plant, whose cultivation and ingestion were linked to various social rituals, coca was and remains integral to indigenous highland Andean culture, particularly among Quechua- and Aymara-speaking peoples. The word coca itself derives from the Aymara word for tree. Several varieties of coca are cultivated in a variety of ecosystems, from windswept highlands to tropical lowlands. Its chemical composition, including its cocaine content, makes the plant highly resistant to pests and predators. It will also tolerate many harvests a year, a harvest consisting essentially of plucking a portion of the shrub’s leaves. The lifespan of a single shrub will typically extend up to 40 years, while the plant itself will tolerate a wide range of soils and ecological conditions, making it, in these respects, an ideal cultigen. The first documented use of coca by the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas comes from the 1499 journal of European explorer Amerigo Vespucci during his second voyage to the New World, in which he described the practice of coca chewing among the inhabitants of a Caribbean island off the coast of Venezuela. Later Spanish chroniclers decried the natives’s persistent use of coca, but proved unable to eradicate it. The tens of thousands of indigenous laborers forced to work in the silver mines of potosí, for instance, routinely chewed coca, combined with ground seashells or other sources of alkalinity (which facilitates the body’s absorption of the plant’s active chemicals) in order to alleviate the effects of mine labor—a tradition that continued in Andean mines and elsewhere through the 20th century. There is an important distinction between coca and cocaine. Coca refers to the plant and its leaves. Cocaine is but one chemical component of the plant, isolated and refined by chemical and physical processing. A chemical isolate, cocaine is highly addictive. Such chemical refinement is wholly antithetical to the traditional social and cultural use of coca leaves in highland South America. There is no evidence that traditional coca chewing is addictive or harmful. On the contrary, abundant evidence exists that coca’s beneficial effects far exceed any potential negative side effects. Rich in vitamins and minerals, the plant is used for everything from toothaches to altitude sickness. Coca, in short, is integral to highland Andean culture. Many informed observers are convinced that contemporary efforts to eradicate the plant from the Andes in the U.S.-led “War on Drugs” constitute a direct assault on indigenous culture and are doomed to failure. Suggestive of the continuing cultural and political vitality and power of coca in the Andes, in 2006 the newly elected president of Bolivia ran on a platform of defending cocaleros (coca growers) from the assault on their traditional lifeways. See also Andean religion; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Moseley, Michael E. The Incas and Their Ancestors. London: Thames & Hudson, 2001; Weil, Andrew. “The New Politics of Coca.” New Yorker (May 15, 1995). Michael J. Schroeder Colbert, Jean-Baptiste (1619–1683) French statesman Jean-Baptiste Colbert was born on August 29, 1619, in Reims, France. His father was a draper, but Jean-Baptiste was educated in business. At age 20 he began service in the Ministry of War under Michel Le Tellier. In 1651, he became Jules Cardinal Mazarin’s (1602–61) personal financial attendant; it was Mazarin who later recommended Colbert to Louis XIV, king of France (1638–1715). Colbert became Louis XIV’s comptroller (minister of finance) in 1665 and held that position until 1687. France’s financial system had been plagued by corrupt and weak administration, and funds collected scarcely made their way to the proper authorities. Due to Colbert’s investigations, superintendent of finance Nicolas Fouquet (1615–80) was tried for embezzlement in 1661 and imprisoned for life. The office of superintendent was abolished, and numerous other officials lost their positions. Colbert restructured French finances, which were thereafter ruled by a council of finance bound to a new set of accounts to keep to the budget. Colbert reduced interest rates on France’s public debt to free funds for other projects. He made tax collections and distributions so efficient that he reaped a 50 percent tax decrease in costs. Soon, he managed to increase France’s net revenues by 30 million livres. Colbert also oversaw the corvée, the much 82 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste despised free labor that peasants owed to their lords. He was a gifted financier and administrator, but he found it exceedingly difficult to control Louis XIV’s extravagant spending, which often brought French to the brink of bankruptcy. A mercantilist intent on market reforms, Colbert expanded commerce and maintained a positive trade balance. He also pushed for protective tariffs and subsidies and introduced government control over commerce and trade in 1644 with price and quality controls. He declared more than 100 edicts to govern guilds. With an eye toward the world market, he introduced the luxurious silk trade, Venetian glass blowing, and Flemish cloth trades to France. Colbert initiated massive roadwork projects and had the Canal of Languedoc built to facilitate easier commercial communication. His model factories used specific production standards to ensure quality along with volume. He closely supervised colonization costs by establishing the French East Indian Company and the French West India Company. In 1669, Colbert became marine minister. He ordered arsenals and harbors to be built including the ports of Rochefort and Brest. He immediately wrote new navigation laws and then instituted the merchant marine and the French navy. To improve the navy’s training and patriotism, he established naval schools and instituted a system of classes for the service to ensure loyalty. Every seaman would provide six months of service once within a four-year period in which he would receive full pay and then receive half-pay and a pension when these conditions were met. To fill up the ranks, Colbert used condemned criminals, North American Indians, and slaves to serve in the navy. A patriot of France, Colbert declared new codes to centralize power in the monarchy. These included a civil code in 1667, a criminal code in 1670, a commercial code in 1772, a marine code in 1681, and colonial codes in 1685. Because he believed in the superiority of French art and science, his avid support of these institutions led him personally to found at least four major prestigious French academies. Although Colbert had dealt with various challenges with the extravagant King Louis XIV, the king’s decision to declare war on the Netherlands in 1672 forced him to change some of his basic policies. For example, he had no choice but to raise funds for the war by increasing taxes, selling office, and borrowing money. Despite Colbert’s track record prior to the war, these unpopular policies created strong dissent. Moreover, he had never really gained much support within court circles, probably because of the power he wielded. For all his efforts to make improvements at all levels of France, he was not rewarded with the appreciation of his countrymen. Still, most historians consider him a great French statesman. Colbert died on September 6, 1683. Further reading: Cole, Charles W. Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1964; Meyer, Jean. Colbert. Paris: Hachette, 1981; Murat, Inès. Colbert. Vervier: Marabout, 1984; Sargent, Arthur J. The Economic Policy of Colbert. New York: B. Franklin, 1968; Trout, Andrew P. Jean Baptiste Colbert. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1978. Annette Richardson Columbian exchange Two ecological systems, evolved for thousands of years in near total isolation from each other, suddenly thrust together, flooding each side with the organisms of the other over the course of nearly five centuries—this is the concept of the Columbian exchange, a term coined by historian Alfred W. Crosby in 1972 to describe the biological intermingling of the Old World and New World in the centuries following the first contacts of Europeans, Africans, and indigenous Americans. Encompassing all classes of animals, plants, and microbes, and the attendant cultural and social transformations they engendered, the Columbian exchange forever transformed the face of the planet and represents one of the most important consequences of the European encounter with the Americas. Plants comprised one broad category of this centurieslong biotic exchange. In 1951, Russian botanist Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov listed 640 of humanity’s most important cultigens. Of these, more than 500 originated in the Americas. Among the most important staple crops of the Western Hemisphere to make their way to Europe, Africa, and beyond were maize, beans (of many varieties), potatoes and sweet potatoes, squashes and pumpkins, peanuts, and manioc (cassava). Also important were the papaya, guava, avocado, pineapple, tomato, chili peppers of many varieties, and cacao. Maize cultivation originated in Mesoamerica around 5000 b.c.e. before spreading to both South and North America at least 1,000 years before the European arrival. The most important staple crop of the Americas, maize soon became one of the most important cultigens in both Europe and Africa. Beans, of which there are more than a thousand species, formed one pillar of the maize-beans-squash triad of staple crops common Columbian exchange 83 among many pre-Columbian American cultivators. Not all beans are American in origin—soybeans, for instance, originated in the Eastern Hemisphere—but many of the most popular varieties are American, including the lima, Rangoon, kidney, navy, snap, and frijole beans (pinto, red, black, and others). Potatoes, indigenous to the Andes, were developed into hundreds of varieties in the centuries before 1500. After the conquest of Peru, Spaniards selected several varieties to transport back home, particularly the white potato, which soon spread across much of Europe. Wealthier classes tended to look upon the potato as a quasi-food, while for many of the poor it became an important staple crop, most infamously in Ireland, where overreliance on a few varieties led to the Irish famine of the 1840s. Another tuberous American starch was manioc. Known in its form as tapioca pudding among many Europeans, and as cassava across much of Africa and Asia, where it became an important staple crop and famine food, manioc has very little nutritional value but grows where many other cultigens will not, thriving in a broad belt extending 30 degrees north and south of the equator. Far and away the most important nonfood cultigens transferred from the Americas to the Old World were tobacco and coffee, both of which rapidly became extremely popular in Europe before their subsequent spread across the globe. Also important were some varieties of cotton, and, from the 19th century, rubber. The most important plant crops making their way from the Old World to the Americas included wheat, rice, bananas, sugar, grapes, olives, mangos, breadfruit, and African yams. Also important were chickpeas, melons, onions, cauliflower, cabbage, lettuce, and radishes. European fruits transplanted to the New World included oranges, lemons, pomegranates, citrons, and figs. Wheat was taken to New Spain soon after the conquest of Mexico. By 1535, New Spain was exporting wheat to the Caribbean and beyond, while wheat cultivation soon spread to wherever conditions permitted. Bananas were taken to the Antilles from the Canary Islands in 1516, after which banana cultivation spread rapidly throughout the Caribbean Basin and beyond. Sugar, originating in the Mediterranean and cultivated in the Canary Islands and Azores in the 1400s, was taken to Hispaniola in 1493 by Columbus. Its subsequent spread in the Spanish Antilles was slow until the Spanish Crown intervened actively to promote its cultivation, while its spread in Brazil was due mainly to the actions of planters. Grape cultivation, overwhelmingly for wine production, met many obstacles in the Caribbean and New Spain but proved successful in Peru and Chile; by the 1650s, they were producing wine for export. Olives followed a similar path, with initial failures in the Antilles and New Spain followed by success in Andean highland valleys. Another category of plants consisted of weeds, plants for which people had not devised a use, and whose exchange across the Atlantic was unintended; examples include the dandelion, daisy, and Kentucky bluegrass. Though no definitive study has determined the precise number of such species exchanged, there is little doubt that it runs into the thousands. Animals The introduction of cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats also profoundly affected peoples and cultures across the Americas, with important regional variations. Pigs proliferated across the Caribbean from early on, and there were few places thereafter where abundant pigs did not accompany both Spanish and Portuguese or were not adopted by indigenous Americans. Cattle ranching emerged as an important economic pillar across much of the hemisphere, with beef, hides, and tallow becoming major commodities across most of the Americas save the Amazon Basin and the Andes. Sheep thrived especially on the high plateau of Central Mexico and Rio Grande Basin, the Andes, and across southern South America. Native peoples were quick to adopt whatever of these animals the environment permitted, generating widespread variations across the hemisphere. The unin- 84 Columbian exchange Florida Native American (Timucua) men cultivate a field while women plant seeds of maize or beans. From a 1591 engraving. tended consequences of sheep and cattle proliferation in some regions included widespread overgrazing and soil erosion. During the colonial period, the environmental effects of unrestrained sheep herding in central and northern Mexico were especially deleterious. Animals unintentionally taken to the Americas by Europeans included thousands of species of insects, rats, and a variety of other vermin. Animals comprised another broad category of organisms exchanged between Old World and New. The pre-Columbian Americas had no beasts of burden save the camelids of the Andes, the llama and alpaca. Other domesticated New World animals included the guinea pig, dog, turkey, and duck. European introductions included horses, donkeys, mules, cattle, oxen, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, and many varieties of larger dogs. While many indigenous peoples rejected wheat and other European crops, many also readily adopted these four-legged European domesticates. The horse, several varieties of which had evolved in the Americas and become extinct at the beginning of the Holocene, exercised a profound influence across the hemisphere. From the Argentine pampas to the Great Plains of North America, horses and their kin transformed fundamental aspects of society and culture, beginning with their introduction into the Antilles by Christopher Columbus in 1493. Herds of wild horses spread quickly north after the conquest of Mexico, reaching the Great Plains by the mid-1700s and perhaps before. The introduction of horses to South America is generally attributed to Pedro de Mendoza’s few animals taken to Buenos Aires in 1535. Fifty years later, vast herds populated the vast open prairies of the pampas. pathogens A final and monumentally important category of organisms exchanged between Old World and New consisted of microbes. While the vast majority were harmless, a handful were deadly pathogens responsible for one of the most precipitous and widespread demographic declines in world history. The overwhelming direction of the flow of disease was from Europe to the Americas. By the 16th century, after centuries of plagues and epidemics, European peoples inhabited a highly evolved disease pool in which immunities to the most virulent pathogens were widely shared. Such immunities did not exist in the Americas, although a wide variety of diseases were endemic in the Western Hemisphere, including tuberculosis, histoplasmosis, leishmaniasis, Chagas’ disease, amebic dysentery, various rickettsial fevers, syphilis, and many types of intestinal parasites. Of the diseases transplanted from Europe to the Americas, smallpox was the deadliest killer, along with typhus, measles, bubonic plague, and malaria. The one pathogen that migrated the other way was syphilis, a disease and a process of transmission that spawned a huge body of literature and debate. A broad scholarly consensus emerging from this debate holds that both venereal syphilis and an endemic nonvenereal strain (caused by various strains of the bacterium Treponema pallidum) were most likely first contracted by European men through sexual relations with indigenous women and spread by the captured Indians taken to the Spanish court by Columbus in 1493. It is believed that the epidemic that spread among the men of Christopher Columbus at the garrison of Isabela on Hispaniola in 1493 during the conquest of the Caribbean was a form of syphilis, probably contracted through the rape of Indian women. The disease was unknown in Europe before 1493. By 1496, it had spread to France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, and Greece, and by 1503, to China, spreading farther and becoming endemic thereafter. In sum, scholarly debates and investigations continue on these and many other environmental and biological consequences engendered by the coming together of Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas after 1492. See also epidemics in the Americas; sugarcane plantations in the Americas; tobacco in Colonial British America. Further reading: Cook, Noble David. Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492–1650. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Crosby, Alfred W. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972; Melville, Elinor G. K. A Plague of Sheep: Environmental Consequences of the Conquest of Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Redcliffe, Salaman, and J. G. Hawks, eds. The History and Social Influence of the Potato. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Michael J. Schroeder Columbus, Christopher (1451?–1506) Genoese navigator Genoese navigator and explorer, most renowned for his voyage to the Americas on October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus (Cristóbal Colón) ranks among the most important actors in the early modern era. His encounter with the Americas ranks among the most consequential Columbus, Christopher 85 events in world history, placing Old World and New into sustained contact with repercussions that are still being felt today. Sometimes erroneously credited with the notion that the Earth was spherical and that sailing west would permit reaching the Far East, Columbus was but one of many European navigators in the late 1400s to hold such views. His fame is not based on his pursuit of an original idea, but on his dogged determination, despite many setbacks, to achieve his goals, combined with the striking good fortune to be the first to reach the Americas and return with evidence of a world that hitherto had lain beyond the ken of Europe. As a youth Columbus followed his father’s trade and worked as a weaver, also spending some of his time at sea. In 1475, in his early 20s, he journeyed to the eastern Mediterranean. The following year he arrived in England. Settling in Lisbon in 1477, he married and became enmeshed in the heady world of Portuguese navigators, who at that time were in the forefront of European efforts to reach India and China by sea and thus skirt the Muslim-dominated lands of the Middle East. Adopting the conviction, widespread among experienced navigators, that uncharted lands lay west across the sea, Columbus for several years tried and failed to secure the patronage of King João II of Portugal for his exploratory venture. Rebuffed in Lisbon, Columbus took his scheme to the court at Castile, the largest and most powerful of the Spanish Christian kingdoms, and at that time in the final stages of expelling the Moors from Iberia. After eight years, his persistence finally paid off, when Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain, flush with their victory over the Moors in Granada, agreed to patronize the scheme of the Genoese navigator. Setting sail from Palos, Spain, on August 3, 1492, Columbus commanded three small caravels: the Santa María, which he himself captained; the Pinta under experienced navigator Martín Alonso Pinzón; and the Niña under Vicente Yáñez Pinzón. After replenishing supplies in the Canary Islands, the convoy headed due west from September 6 to October 7, changing course to southwest at the suggestion of Martín Pinzón. Quelling a small mutiny on October 10, Columbus and his convoy sighted land on October 12, probably Watling Island in the Bahamas. Erecting a cross, planting a flag, and claiming the land for Spain, Columbus christened the island San Salvador. He also interrogated the natives about the source of the gold ornaments they were wearing. As in subsequent expeditions, gold was paramount in the litany of marketable commodities from which Columbus and his subordinates were seeking to profit. After exploring and charting neighboring islands, on October 27, the convoy sighted Cuba, and on December 5, Hispaniola. Earlier, in late November, in an act of insubordination, Martín Pinzón took the Pinta east in search of the island of Babeque, reputed to be a source of gold. Columbus did not see Pinzón again until January 6, 1493, when they reunited on the north coast of Hispaniola. On December 20, the Santa María and Niña sailed into Acul Bay on the north coast of Hispaniola. On December 24, in the midst of Christmas Eve celebrations, the Santa María drifted onto a coral reef and was destroyed. Interpreting the wreck as a sign from God, Columbus used what remained of the Santa María to create the rudiments of the first European settlement in the New World, which he called Villa de la Navidad (Christmas Village). Leaving some 40 men behind at Navidad, Columbus linked up with the Pinta under Pinzón, and together they continued exploring the north coast of Hispaniola. On January 15, 1493, Columbus decided to return to Spain. After a brief and unexpected stop in Lisbon, he, Pinzón, their crews, and six native Taínos sailed into Palos, Spain, on March 15. Received at the court with great pomp and majesty, Columbus was granted a coat of arms and other high honors, including being named Admiral of the Ocean Sea as stipulated in his contract. Less than two months later, on April 29, his letter to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella describing his discoveries was published in Italy, and within the year was circulating widely throughout Europe. The overall effect was electrifying and distinguishes Columbus’s voyage from others who may have reached the Americas before him. Its political impact was also immediate and profound, ratcheting up the competition between Spain and Portugal in particular. Fortunately for Spain, Pope Alexander VI declared Spain’s right to claim all new lands west of a northsouth line 100 leagues (less than 500 kilometers) west of the Azores, into which all of the Americas fell. In 1494, the line was modified, to the benefit of Portugal, in the Treaty of Tordesillas. Columbus made three subsequent voyages to the New World in 1493, 1498, and 1502, making many additional discoveries, none of which, however, compared to his first. During this period, his reputation at the Spanish court declined markedly, as he proved a great explorer and self-promoter but a very poor administrator of the numerous settlements he had founded. Indeed 86 Columbus, Christopher in 1500, the newly appointed governor of Hispaniola sent Columbus back to Spain in chains in consequence of the colony’s dismal conditions. Until the end of his days, Columbus was convinced that he had reached the East Indies, while the scramble for lands and resources that his discoveries initiated forever transformed the face of Europe, Africa, and the Americas. See also voyages of discovery. Further reading: Columbus, Ferdinand. The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by His Son Ferdinand. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1959; Dor-Ner, Zvi. Columbus and the Age of Discovery. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1991; Morison, Samuel Eliot. Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus. Boston: Little, Brown, 1942. Michael J. Schroeder Commonwealth of England See Cromwell, Oliver. Copernicus, Nicolaus (1473–1543) astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus presented an alternative model of the universe that broke with that proposed by Ptolemy in the second century c.e. and thus with the prevailing assumptions of astronomers in his own time. Although he did no observations and lacked advanced mathematical skill, he nonetheless ushered in the “new” science and physics of Galileo and Isaac Newton. The Latinized name Copernicus belonged to the man born in Torun, Poland, as Mikolaj Kopernik. His wealthy merchant father died when his son was only 10 or 11 years old; Copernicus spent his youth in the household of his maternal uncle, Lucas Waczenroade, who was also bishop of Ermeland. He therefore received a good education that enabled him to succeed when he went on to the University of Krakow in 1491. He developed an interest in astronomy while in Krakow, but he instead pursued law and medicine while in Bologna and Padua. He became a doctor of canon law in 1503. His participation in the broader humanist movement was made manifest by his 1519 publication of his translation from the Greek into Latin of letters by a seventh-century Byzantine poet. His uncle appointed him canon at Frombork Cathedral in 1503, but Copernicus did not reestablish residency in Poland until 1506. He served his uncle as secretary and physician until the bishop died in 1512. Thereafter, Copernicus devoted his time to astronomy, along with his responsibilities as canon, physician, and local mathematician. In the latter capacity, he developed a plan for currency reform. He also took command of a castle at Allenstein in 1520 after the Teutonic Knights invaded the region. Copernicus did not at first widely disseminate the ideas that later made him famous, even though he had developed them by 1510. His doubts about the Ptolemaic model of the universe focused on a few weak points that had also been identified by other astronomers. First, the Ptolemaic system required the Moon’s orbit to be offset from the Earth to explain apparent variations in the speed of the Moon’s motion around the Earth. The magnitude of this offset would entail equally dramatic variations in the apparent size of the Moon, dependent on its distance from the Earth. No observer had witnessed anything of the kind. Second, Copernicus disliked the complexity and incoherence of Ptolemy’s model. He expected that a single principle governed the organization of the universe, whereas Ptolemy dealt with each planet, the Sun, and the Moon individually and gave each body its own epicycles and own offset from the Earth. Copernicus aspired to formulate a far more elegant model that would better evidence the unity of what he believed to be God’s creation. Shortly after he first became interested in astronomy, Copernicus read a book published by German natural philosopher Johannes Mueller, known as Regiomontanus. Regiomontanus published Epitome in 1496. In this work, he provided a summary of the Almagest, included new observational data, and added critical textual commentary. For example, he highlighted the problem of the Ptolemaic model with regard to the apparent size of the Moon. Copernicus circulated his own model among close friends soon after 1510 in the form of a manuscript, called Commentariolus. It attracted the interest of various astronomers, and it was mentioned by papal secretary Johan Widmanstadt in a lecture at the Vatican given to an audience that included the pope and cardinals. Cardinal Nicholas von Schönberg requested that Copernicus publish his ideas; his letter was reproduced at the beginning of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres), published in 1543. Copernicus remained somewhat dissatisfied with his model; that may in part explain his reluctance to publish. Although placing the Sun at the center and arranging the Copernicus, Nicolaus 87 orbits of the planets around it had several advantages (for example, it accounted for observations of the planets and allowed estimates of their distance from each other), it did not completely satisfy his desire for unity and order. The Moon orbited around the Earth, for instance. Also, he could not explain the seeming acceleration and deceleration of planets in their orbits because he assumed that orbits were perfectly circular (rather than elliptical) and that the universe could have an exact center. Further, Copernicus continued to believe that the stars were fastened upon a crystalline sphere beyond the spheres that carried the planets. If the Earth was moving, he and other astronomers anticipated that an observer on Earth should see the stars appear to move. The absence of the so-called parallax effect results from the fact that the stars lie thousands of times farther than the outermost planet, such that the parallax is too small to be seen by all but the most careful observers using sophisticated telescopes not available until the 19th century at the earliest. Last, Copernicus offered no explanation for why people on Earth perceive no evidence that the planet constantly moves, such as a wind. After much hesitation and work on other tasks, Copernicus yielded to the request of mathematics professor Georg Joachim von Lauchen (called Rheticus), who arrived at Frombork in spring 1539 to meet with him. He agreed to allow Rheticus oversee the publication of his work. Rheticus published First Account of the Revolutionary Book by Copernicus in 1540, but he left his post at Wittenberg for one at Nuremberg before he could complete preparations for De revolutionibus. Rheticus left the project to Andreas Osiander, whose unsigned preface made explicit that Copernicus offered a model, not an assertion of fact. Osiander, a Lutheran minister, would have known that Martin Luther had condemned the notion of a Sun-centered universe as contrary to the cosmology hinted at in the Bible. Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church expressed no concerns about the theory at the time, however. published work Copernicus died before he could read the published version of his book. De revolutionibus did not have many readers, in fact: All of its first edition of 400 copies did not sell. In England, an astronomer by the name of Thomas Digges discussed the Copernican model in his book of 1576, but the theory did not gain much additional attention until the declared heretic Giordano Bruno was executed in 1600. Bruno subscribed to an assortment of heterodox beliefs and to the cult of Hermes Trismegistus, which worshiped the Sun; he claimed that the Egyptian religion was the true faith. Bruno also happened to believe in the Copernican model of the universe, a circumstance that may have brought the idea into disfavor with the church in a form of guilt by association. The Vatican placed De revolutionibus on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1616 (it was removed in 1835). When Johannes Kepler derived his laws of planetary motion after postulating a Sun-centered universe and after Galileo defended the theory as a description of reality and confronted the church with new evidence, Copernicus’s ideas began to exercise an important influence on the course of scientific inquiry. As with any useful theory, that of Copernicus directed research in particular directions and could be tested by observation. Further reading: Gingerich, Owen. The Book That Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus. New York: Walker and Co, 2004; Gribben, John. The Scientists: A History of Science Told through the Lives of Its Greatest Inventors. New York: Random House, 2002; Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life Work. New York: Harper and Row, 1973; Kuhn, Thomas S. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Aastronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957; Westman, Robert S. The Copernican Achievement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Melanie A. Bailey Coronado, Francisco Vásquez de (1510–1554) Spanish explorer Francisco Vásquez de Coronado was the Spanish explorer who led the expedition looking for the fabled Seven Cities of Cibola rumored to be located in southwestern North America. Coronado served in the entourage of Antonio de Mendoza, Spain’s first viceroy to Mexico. He served as governor of New Galicia from 1538–39, when he was named the commander of the expedition Mendoza was putting together to look for the Seven Cities of Cibola. The expedition spent 1540– 42 looking for the cities, but did not find them. After the expeditions returned to Mexico, Coronado faded into obscurity and died in 1554. Born into a wealthy family in Burgos, Spain, in 1510, Coronado decided to go to the New World to make his fortune. He arrived in Mexico in 1535 as part of Mendoza’s following, where he was appointed as governor of New Galicia in August 1538. New Galicia was a frontier outpost on Spain’s northernmost border 88 Coronado, Francisco Vásquez de of Mexico. During the preceding years, rumors had circulated in Mexico of a fabulously rich kingdom of seven cities called Cibola in the American Southwest. In 1539, Mendoza determined to send an expedition into that area to find the Seven Cities of Cibola, and he named Coronado to command the expedition. The expedition set out on April 22, 1540, and headed where the first of the cities was supposedly located. Arriving on July 7, Coronado discovered only an unimpressive pueblo village. Attacking the village Coronado was knocked out by a stone and almost killed, but was saved by two of his officers. The Spanish eventually captured the village, and Coronado made the pueblo his temporary camp from which he sent out parties to scout the surrounding area in hopes of finding Cibola. These parties scouted a large part of the American Southwest and were the first Europeans to see the Grand Canyon. In November 1540, the main body of the expedition caught up with Coronado. He then moved his base camp into the valley of the Rio Grande in December, where they spent the winter forcing the local natives to give them food and warm clothing. The expedition set out again in spring, leaving camp on April 22, 1541. They moved east into Texas and then southwest. They picked up a local guide, who told them of rich kingdoms to the north. Coronado sent most of the expedition back to the previous winter’s camp and headed north with a small group of horsemen to try to find these kingdoms. The rich villages turned out to be Wichita Indian villages made up of grass huts along the Arkansas River in what would become Kansas. Finding no gold, Coronado returned to his camp. In December 1541, Coronado was thrown from his horse under another horse and nearly killed. The following April, Coronado decided to return to Mexico. Upon returning to Mexico, Coronado lost his governorship and was charged with incompetence and mistreating the local natives. He was cleared of both charges but never held another command or office. He died in 1542. See also Mexico, conquest of. Further reading: Bedini, Silvio A., ed. The Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia. News York: Simon & Schuster, 1992; Flint, Richard, and Shirley Cushing Flint, eds. The Coronado Expedition: From the Distance of 460 Years. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2003; Golay, Michael, and John S. Bowman. North American Exploration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003; Hammond, George P., and Agapito Rey. Narratives of the Coronado Expedition, 1540– 1542. Brooklyn, NY, and Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1940. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Cortés, Hernán (1485–1547) Spanish conqueror Famed for his ruthlessly brilliant leadership in the Spanish conquest of Mexico, Hernán Cortés (Hernando [or Fernando] Cortez) occupies a peculiar position in Mexican national memory, remembered by all but revered by none. A contemporary of Niccolò Machiavelli, Cortés through his exploits in Mexico earned the reputation as one of the early modern era’s most Machiavellian of historical actors. Born in Medellín, Estremadura, Spain, in 1485, of minor nobility, his mother related to the family of Francisco Pizarro, Cortés studied briefly at the University of Salamanca before opting for a life of militarism and adventure in the recently discovered Americas. In 1504, he journeyed to Hispaniola, and soon after, from 1511, participated in the conquest of Cuba under Governor Diego Velázquez. His successes earned him a substantial encomienda, sufficient to provide a steady stream of revenue for the rest of his life, though his adventures and conquests had only begun. In 1518, after much behind the scenes maneuvering by Cortés, Governor Velásquez appointed him to head an exploratory expedition to the Mexican mainland. Over the next three years (1519–21), Cortés revealed the extraordinary courage, ambition, single-minded determination, and political cunning for which he became justly renowned. Time and again, faced with seemingly insurmountable odds, he managed to turn the political and military tide to his favor. Among his most brilliant maneuvers were his swift recognition and deft exploitation of the political divisions between the Aztecs and their subject polities; his keen perception of the Aztec emperor Moctezuma II’s psychological weaknesses and the stratagems he devised to exploit them; his instillation of a sense of unity of purpose and inevitability of victory among his men; his winning over of members of the Narváez expedition sent by Governor Velázquez to bring him to heel; and his successful representation of himself to King Charles V and the court as a loyal subject acting only on behalf of church and king. This latter capacity is especially apparent in the five lengthy letters Cortés dispatched to King Charles from 1519 to 1526, reporting on and justifying his actions. Cortés, Hernán 89 After reducing Tenochtitlán to rubble, he continued the conquests, sending expeditions north, west, and south into northern Central America. His appointment as governor and captain-general of New Spain in 1522 was considered the high point of his life, along with his admission into the Order of Santiago in 1525. In 1524–26, he headed an expedition overland through the Maya zones into Honduras, along the way executing his prisoner, the Aztec lord Cuautemoc, in 1525. The expedition a disaster, he returned to Mexico City in 1526 only to find that his enemies had gained power at his expense. Journeying to Spain (1528–30), he was appointed marqués of the Valley of Oaxaca by King Charles, who granted him the colony’s largest encomienda (of 23,000 Indians), making him one of the richest men in all of Spain’s dominions. Upon his return to New Spain in 1530, his enemies again had gained the upper hand, including (from 1535) Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza, among others, against whom he spent years in fruitless squabbling and defending himself in a long series of accusations and judicial inquiries. After embarking on an expedition to the Pacific and discovering and naming California in the late 1530s, he once again returned to Spain in 1540 to continue to press his claims, was largely ignored by the court, and died. Insights into Cortés’s political and military brilliance during the conquest of Mexico, and his political shortcomings later in life, can be gleaned from his five letters, along with the narrative of Bernal Díaz del Castillo, and a range of other accounts. See also voyages of discovery. Further reading: Cortés, Hernando. Five Letters of Cortés to the Emperor. J. Bayard Morris, trans. New York: Norton, 1969; Thomas, Hugh. Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés, and the Fall of Old Mexico. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. Michael J. Schroeder Cossacks The Cossacks originally settled in the southern steppes of Europe and into Russia. As early as 1380, the Cossacks along the Don River are recorded as fighting with the Russian grand duke Dmitri against the Mongols. On September 8, 1380, Dmitri won a decisive victory over the Mongols at Kulikovo by the Don River, effectively marking the end of Mongol rule over much of Russia. By the 16th century, the Cossacks had merged into two large autonomous bands, the Don Cossacks and the Zaporojie, who lived along the bends of the river Dnieper. (Zaporojie is translated as “below the bend in the river.”) Other historians have pointed to additional areas of Cossack settlement as time progressed, including areas in which entire settlements of Cossacks resided. While surrounded by the power of the growing Russian state of Poland in addition to the Crimean Tartars (or Mongols), the Cossacks still managed to keep a large measure of independence because of their military prowess. Many serfs, or slaves, ran off to join the Cossacks because the measure of freedom enjoyed under the Cossack leaders (called atamans or hetmans) was not found anywhere else in Russia or East Europe during that period. The word Cossack is derived from the Turkic term kazak, meaning “free man.” Most of the Cossacks were of Slavic descent, and the majority Christian, usually of the Russian Orthodox faith. The Cossacks were governed by the Rada, or Legislative Assembly, led by the ataman. During wartime, the ataman served as the supreme war commander. The Cossacks realized that keeping their freedom meant keeping their military skills at a high degree of readiness. Their lifestyle reflected the influence of the Mongols before them. Boys were given weapons almost as soon as they could hold them and taught to ride sometimes before they could even walk. Indeed, the main strength of the Cossacks came from the quick charges they could execute on their horses. The atamans staged sham battles with the younger boys to accustom them to a military life from as early an age as possible. Brave and daring boys were noticed by the leader and were marked from an early age for advancement. Cossacks began to use their centralized position to raid the domains of the nations growing around them, although most of their attacks were directed toward the Muslim Tartars of the Crimea and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. At the same time, when the frontiers of the powers in East Europe were so fluid, each county could see the value of the Cossacks as frontier troops, perfectly suited to counter raiders from enemy lands. In 1569, Poland and Lithuania formally became the Union of Lublin. Lithuanian grand duke Jogaila ruled the united monarchy as Ladislas (Władysław) II Jagiello, first of the Jagiello dynasty. The pact that set the state for his marriage to the queen of Poland stipulated that he become a Roman Catholic, the religion of Poland. In 1596, the Union of Brest united the Russian Orthodoxy of Lithuania with the Roman Catholicism of Poland to form what was known as the Uniate Church. The 90 Cossacks Uniate Church began a persecution of Orthodox believers who would not convert, and perhaps thousands fled to the Sech Commonwealth of the Cossacks. In 1645, Ladislas IV sought to involve the Cossacks, who by now were within the boundaries of Polish power, in war against the Ottoman Empire. When his plans were revealed, the Cossacks feared becoming the scapegoats for the two countries. In addition to the continued persecution of the Orthodox Church, the exposure of Ladislas’s secret treaty led the Cossacks under Bohdan Khmelnitsky to rise up against Poland in 1648, the very year that the Treaty of Westphalia sought to bring peace to Europe by ending the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48). Khemelnitski formed an alliance with the Tartars and the Zaporojie Cossacks and led an invasion of Poland. Polish serfs rose up when Khmelnitski approached. For six years, the rebellion ravaged Poland and the Ukraine. Thousands of Poles and Jews were massacred in some of the most savage butchery ever seen in Europe. Finally in 1654, seeing that the destruction of the Polish Kingdom was beyond his means, Khmelnitski took the irrevocable step of making an alliance with Czar Alexei, the second of the Romanov dynasty. Tragically for the Cossacks’ love of freedom, Khmelnitski had exchanged one master for another, the Polish king for a Russian czar. Under the Romanovs, the 17th century saw a tightening of the control of Russia over the Cossacks. The Russians saw the Cossacks as excellent troops to be used against the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Cossacks carried out fierce raids against the Tartars and in 1663, Turkish sultan Mohammed IV sent a large army against the Zaporojie Cossacks. Although the Zaporozhians were asleep after a drinking bout, one aroused himself in time to see the Turks approaching. Incredibly, the Cossacks were able to fend off their attackers and force them to retreat. Eventually, the tension between Russian rule and the Cossacks’ desire for freedom led to the rebellion of Stephan (Stenka) Razin in the last years of Czar Alexei’s reign. Razin turned against the Russians in 1670, beginning what became a full-fledged Cossack revolt. Although many Cossacks joined him, others allied themselves with the Russians, whose disciplined troops soon crushed Razin’s uprising at Simbirsk. After undergoing torture in Moscow, Razin was beheaded in 1671. Ever after, he became a symbol of Russian resistance to tyranny. The son of Czar Alexei, Peter I, or Peter the Great, recognized the military potential of the Cossacks, despite their rebelliousness. In 1696, Peter seized the Black Sea port of Azov from the Turks, thanks to his Cossack allies. The greatest test of Peter’s reign came in the Great Northern War against King Charles XII of Sweden (1700–21). Ivan Mazeppa was the leading Cossack hetman at the time, and he reestablished the Cossacks as an important factor in eastern European affairs, balancing the ambitions of Poland and Russia. When Peter decisively defeated Charles at Poltava in July, Mazeppa was forced to flee. Mazeppa died of natural causes in September 1709, before Peter could catch him. After Mazeppa, the Cossacks became a part of the Russian Army, even raiding Berlin in the army of Czarina Elizabeth during the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) against Frederick II of Prussia. However, the Cossacks’ love of liberty would lead to one more rebellion before the close of the 18th century. When Elizabeth died in 1762, her son Peter III was overthrown and killed in a palace coup by his wife, Catherine. Catherine, who would be known to history as Catherine the Great, was faced in September 1773 with the rebellion of the Don Cossack Emelian Pugachev. To the serfs of Russia, little better than slaves, Pugachev seemed to be their champion, as he fought against the oppressing landlords. In March of 1774, Pugachev was defeated by Catherine’s troops at Orenburg; as was Razin, he was executed by beheading. The rebellion of Pugachev was the last real defiance against the loss of the Cossacks’ liberty. It is one of the great ironies of history that in later years, the Cossacks would become some of the most ruthless defenders of the Russian despotism against which they once had fought so bravely. See also Mughal Empire. Further reading: Erickson, Carolly. Great Catherine: The Life of Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia. New York: St. Martin’s, 1994; Grant, R. G. Battle: A Visual Journey through 5,000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling, Kindersley, 2005; History of Cossacks, Chereshneff, Colonel W.V., www.armymuseum.ru/kaz1_e.html (cited February 2006); Massie, Robert K. Peter the Great: His Life and World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1981; Ure, John. The Cossacks: An Illustrated History. New York: Overlook Press, 2002. John Murphy Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe Beginning in the late 15th century, calls for reform of the Catholic Church “in head and members”—that is, Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe 91 in respect to both the papal administration and the life of the faithful—had become commonplace in all ecclesiastical circles. However, in the early 16th century, there were increasing calls from many sides for the calling of a General Council. The Fifth Lateran Council of 1512–17, called by Pope Julius II, undertook various reforms, but its pronouncements had little effect. If reform “in the head” was stymied by political and bureaucratic inertia, reform “in the members” was proceeding ahead. The late 15th century saw reforms within the Franciscan, Augustinian, and Carmelite orders, leading, in the case of the Franciscans and Augustinians, to the founding of separate branches of the orders incorporating friars following a stricter version of their rule. It was indeed from the observant branch of the Augustinians that Martin Luther came. There was also a revival of the study of the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, whose work had been neglected in most universities (outside his own Dominican order) in favor of the via moderna represented by William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel. Cardinal Tomasso de Vio (1469– 1534), known as Cajetan, a leading Dominican scholar and superior general of the order, led the way with new works on Thomistic theology. At the same time, scholars using humanistic methods called for new approaches to education and theology, most notably Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466–1536), Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples (c. 1455–1536) in France, John Colet (1467–1519) and Sir Thomas More (1478–1535) in England. In Spain Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisernos, an Observant Franciscan, carried out reforms of the church in Spain and opened the University of Alcalá in 1508, where many of the new methods of learning were cultivated. It was there that the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, incorporating Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts, was completed in 1517 and published three years later. During the 15th century, a movement of spiritual renewal known as the Modern Devotion (Devotio Moderna) had attracted followers among both clergy and laity, especially in Northern Europe. This movement stressed personal devotion and conversion, rather than theological speculation. The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (1418) was the most popular representative work of this period. By the end of the century, groups of reformers that focused on personal piety and charitable works had emerged in several cities in Italy. The Oratory of Divine Love, founded in Genoa by a layman, Ettore Vernazza, in 1497, brought together both clergy and laity in pursuit of holiness and good works. Vernazza moved to Rome early in the 16th century and founded an Oratory there. Branches of the Oratory were founded in a number of Italian cities, where they were the seedbeds of many later reform initiatives. The foundation of new religious orders was central to the reforming efforts of the period. Several of these orders were of a new type, “clerks regular”—that is, priests (and in some cases lay brothers) living according to a religious rule, but not bound to celebration of the Divine Office in community as were monastic or mendicant orders. This mode of living suited their orientation to active life, including preaching, teaching, and the hearing of confessions. The first of these orders were the Theatines, founded by Gaetano Thiene (1480–1547) and Gian Pietro Carafa (1476–1559), then bishop of Chieti, both of whom had been members of the Oratory of Divine Love. Their order was approved by Pope Clement VII in 1524. Other such orders included the Clerks Regular of St. Paul, also known as the Barnabites, founded in Milan by Anthony Maria Zaccaria in 1533, and the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), the best-known Counter-Reformation order. The Capuchins, officially approved in 1528 and active in spreading Catholic reform, were one of several offshoots of the Observant Franciscans, whose apostolate was nevertheless similar to that of the new orders. The period also saw the foundation of the first orders of women oriented to the active life, including teaching and care of the sick. The best known of these were the Ursulines, founded in Brescia in 1535 by Angela Merici, a Franciscan associate who had also been a member of the Oratory of Divine Love. For the first 20 years after Luther’s emergence onto the general European scene in 1517, it was by no means clear that his movement would provoke a split in the church. The doctrine of justification, which formed the basis of Luther’s teaching, had been much debated in the 15th century, especially within the schools of the via moderna from which Luther himself had emerged. While his interpretation of this doctrine led Luther to reject the sacramental and hierarchical system of the Catholic Church, there were many who desired to preserve that system but at the same time adopt at least some of his theology. Likewise many of the attacks by Luther and his followers against corruption in the church echoed the concerns of both humanist and Observantine reformers. Thus the writings of important bishops and thinkers were suspected of heresy in their teachings on grace and justification. The suspicions of the more traditional among the hierarchy were further confirmed when Bernardino Ochino, vicar-general of the Capuchins, and the popular preacher Pietro Martire Vermigli fled to Switzerland in 1542 and openly espoused Protestant doctrines. The most prominent order of the Counter- Reformation was the Society of Jesus, founded by Saint 92 Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe Ignatius Loyola (1490–1556). Loyola, a Basque from a family of minor nobility, was converted after being seriously wounded while serving in the army of the king of Spain. After preliminary studies in Spain, he went to the University of Paris, where he assembled a group of like-minded young men, nine of whom took religious vows along with him in 1534. The group put themselves under obedience to the pope, and their rule was approved in 1540. gaining momet um for reform The program of institutional reform gained momentum in the 1530s. Paul III, pope from 1534 to 1549, made a number of the leading reformers cardinals, increasing their influence within the church. In 1536, he commissioned a group of these same men to study the problems confronting the church. Their report, the Consilium de emendanda ecclesiae, presented in 1537, advised reform of the papal curia, better discipline for bishops, and reform of the religious orders. This was the agenda for a coming General Council, for which not only church reformers, but likewise many secular rulers, in particular the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, had been calling for some time. Convocation of a council, however, was impeded by the continuing war between the emperor and the king of France. The council was finally convened at Trent in 1545. Protestants were invited to send observers, but none attended. The French likewise stayed away from the early sessions of the council, both because of its location in Imperial territory and because of suspicion that it would take measures that would interfere with the French king’s attempts to control the church in France. The council’s doctrinal decrees reaffirmed traditional teaching in areas challenged by Protestants, such as the doctrine of free will and the sacraments. The disciplinary decrees of the council strengthened the authority of bishops over the clergy in their dioceses, at the same time demanding that bishops and other holders of pastoral responsibilities personally reside in their jurisdictions. The council mandated the foundation of seminaries in every diocese for the training of priests, an innovation that was perhaps the most influential in the formation of the early modern Catholic Church. The council also recognized the importance of the new medium of print by establishing the Index of Forbidden Books and providing that all works dealing with religious questions be approved beforehand by the local bishop. The publication of the first index was the work of Pope Paul IV, whose reign was marked by an intensification of the efforts to stamp out heresy in Italy. While he himself was a reformer, he had suspected many Counter-Reformation figures of excessive sympathy with Protestantism, some of whom had to appear before Inquisition tribunals. council of trent The institutional reforms mandated by the Council of Trent were put into action only gradually. Pius IV set up a Congregation for the Council in 1563 to supervise its implementation; this was the first of the Roman congregations that became the central administration of the Catholic Church. His successor, Pius V (reigned 1566–72), issued the Roman Catechism, a summary of Catholic teaching, and a revision of the Roman Missal that imposed a uniform standard for the liturgy of the Roman Rite. Beyond Rome, the application of the Council of Trent, which proceeded gradually, nation by nation and diocese by diocese, depended on both the local bishops and the cooperation of secular rulers. The council was applied relatively quickly in Spain and in parts of Italy. Cardinal Charles Borromeo (1538–84), archbishop of Milan and nephew of Pope Pius IV, set the pattern for many of these reforms. He established a seminary and enacted other provisions of the council in the administration of the diocese. He brought the Ursulines and other new orders to Milan, and encouraged the work of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which had been founded in 1536 for the purpose of the religious education of children and included both clergy and laypersons. His efforts extended beyond his diocese throughout northern Italy and Switzerland. By the end of the Council of Trent, the Jesuit order had gained numerous vocations and considerable influence. Several Jesuit theologians participated in the council. The Jesuits had begun the first overseas missionary work in America, Africa, and particularly East Asia; Saint Francis Xavier (1509–52), one of Ignatius Loyola’s original companions, traveled to Goa in 1542 and spent the rest of his life evangelizing in India, the East Indies, and Japan, dying as he was preparing to enter China. The Jesuits were also active within Europe, establishing schools and preaching to the public. In their schools, they combined humanist and Scholastic methods, aiming at attracting the ablest boys and those from the most influential social groups. In many areas where substantial portions of the population had been converted to Protestantism, such as Austria and Bohemia, Jesuit education was one of the means by which these areas were returned to Catholicism by the first part of the 17th century. Jesuit preachers like Peter Canisius Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe 93 (1521–97) began a revival of what had become, by the middle of the 16th century, an almost moribund Catholic Church in Germany. In Spain, a country where Protestantism had attracted very few followers, the Counter-Reformation was marked by a revival of religious and mystical life. The most prominent figure in this revival was the Carmelite reformer and spiritual writer Teresa of Jesus (or Teresa of Ávila, 1515–82) and John of the Cross (1542–91). The revival of religious life characterizing the Counter-Reformation went beyond, however, religious orders and the clergy. The application of the Council of Trent affected the religious experience of laypeople in all parts of Catholic Europe. Circles of “the devout” or “friends of God” had grown up in many places even before the advent of institutional reform. Reforming orders like the Jesuits built on these groups to form organized lay confraternities and sodalities to pursue prayer, education, and charitable works. Confraternities devoted to the Virgin Mary and especially to the Blessed Sacrament held public processions and reaffirmed Catholic doctrines under attack by Protestants. At the same time, reforming bishops and pastors attempted to suppress quasi-magical devotional practices unapproved by church authority, which in many cases had attracted the criticism of Protestant reformers. The Counter-Reformation left the Catholic Church more organized and disciplined. In many ways, the changes in the Catholic Church paralleled those introduced by Protestants in the areas under their control. Both created a disciplined and educated clergy and clearer teaching on doctrinal matters and attempted to bring about effective conversion of the mass of the population. Both relied to a greater degree on the cooperation of secular governments. While many scholars have recognized the contribution of the Counter- Reformation to the strengthening of the Catholic Church, others have suggested that by raising the standards of education of the clergy and attempting to impose a uniform discipline on the laity, the Counter- Reformation alienated many of the uneducated masses and prepared the way for the secularization that began in the 18th century. See also Franciscans in the Americas; humanism in Europe; Jesuits in Asia; justification by faith; Reformation, the; Theresa of Ávila and John of the Cross. Further reading: Bireley, Robert. The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999; Bossy, John. Christianity and the West, 1400–1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985; Delumeau, Jean. Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977; Evenett, H. Outram. The Spirit of the Counter-Reformation, ed. John Bossy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968; Hsia, R. Po-Chia. The World of Catholic Renewal, 1540–1770. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Jedin, Hubert, and John Dolan, eds. History of the Church, vol. 5, Reformation and Counter-Reformation. New York: Seabury, 1980–81. D. Henry Dieterich Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658) British ruler and Puritan religious leader The controversies over Oliver Cromwell’s character and his politics began when he was still serving as the General and the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth in England during the Interregnum of the mid-17th century. The fact that Cromwell was the first private individual to have occupied the highest position in a major European state and had dramatic impact upon his contemporaries all over the British Isles has continued to fascinate historians and political scientists even in modern times. A country gentleman by birth and a Puritan by faith, Cromwell, whose great-grandmother was the older sister of the Tudor statesman Thomas Cromwell, became the member of Parliament for his hometown Huntington in the parliament of 1628–29. He first gained fame during the second session of the Long Parliament (1641-42), where he urged Parliament to fight against the treacherous plot of King Charles I against the House of Commons, and to take control over the army, which had been sent to Ireland to suppress the Catholic rebellion. After the English Civil War broke out, 43- year-old Cromwell joined the Parliamentary Army in the summer of 1642, leading a cavalry unit composed of lightly armed volunteers with devotion and capacity but without noble blood. In the battlefields Cromwell, although an inexperienced commander, led his highly disciplined soldiers to successive victories over the Royalist Army in East Anglia. In January 1644, he outmaneuvered the Bohemian prince Rupert, the nephew of King Charles I and a war veteran in continental battles, and defeated the Royalist cavalries at the Battle of Marston Moor. Because of his military successes, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general in charge of cavalry in the parliamentarian New Model Army under the leadership of the gen- 94 Cromwell, Oliver eral Lord Thomas Fairfax. In 1646, Cromwell played a decisive role in securing the surrender of the Royalists at Oxford, which ended the First Civil War. During the interval between the two civil wars, Cromwell was the only general to be allowed to hold his parliamentary seat. He made a few attempts to persuade his colleagues, especially the radical Puritan members of Parliament, to reach a compromise with King Charles I, but his conciliatory efforts were frustrated by the king’s refusal to give up his dream of divine kingship. After the Scottish Army intervened into English affairs, the Second Civil War broke out, and General Cromwell was forced back to battle against the joint forces of the English Royalists and the Scottish Presbyterians. In August 1648, he executed brilliantly the Battle of Preston Pans, which resulted in the complete defeat of the Scottish interventionists. After cleansing the Royalist remnants in northern England, he marched back to London. One day before his arrival, Colonel Pride, persuaded by Henry Ireton, Cromwell’s son-in-law, who was supported by officers of the New Model Army, had purged 110 hostile members from the Long Parliament. The Pride’s Purge scared another 160 members away and left a “rump” (merely enough for a quorum). The Rump Parliament voted to rename England as a commonwealth on January 4, 1649. In the Rump Parliament, Cromwell became a relentless advocate for trying to convict King Charles of war crimes and for being a traitor to the English people. The king was executed on January 30. commonwealth England was formally declared a commonwealth on May 19, 1649. General Cromwell, his colleagues in the army, and the Rump abolished the kingship, the House of Lords, and the Stuart administrative institutions with the intention of reconstructing the state of people with all original just power under God. In reality, the commonwealth was governed by the Council of State, accountable to the Rump and elected by and among its members. English Civil Wars: Battle of Naseby, June 14, 1645. A decisive victory over Royalists by Parliamentarians under Lord Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell. The Parliamentarians abolished the monarchy and established a commonwealth in England. Cromwell, Oliver 95 In August 1649, Cromwell landed his army in Dublin against the Irish rebels, who had proclaimed Charles II, the son of Charles I, their new sovereign. Within a year, Cromwell defeated the rebels in their strongholds of Drogheda and Wexford. In the following years, the New Model Army devastated all of Ireland, where about one-third of the people were killed either as a result of the war, the persecution of Catholics, the forced ethnic relocation of the Celts, or starvation. In May 1650, after assigning Henry Ireton to govern Ireland, Cromwell marched to Scotland, where Charles II had been crowned king. Since Lord Fairfax refused to be involved in the Scottish campaign, Cromwell was commissioned the general of the New Model Army, and thus assumed the highest leadership position of the commonwealth. Cromwell first defeated the Scottish army at Battle of Dunbar in 1650, and then crushed the Scottish monarchists led by Charles II at the Battle of Worcester in northern England in September 1651. The subjugation of Scotland finally concluded the civil war in the British Isles and resulted in the expansion of the Commonwealth to include both Scotland and Ireland. However, added to the 600,000 Irish victims of the war were 60,000 Scottish and 200,000 English deaths. In Europe, such a death toll was unprecedented at the time and might have only been exceeded during the world wars of the 20th century. domestic policy At home, Cromwell was preoccupied by the restoration of law and order in England. He imposed restrictions on uncompromising Catholics and Anglicans, and at the same time promoted a policy of toleration toward all non-Anglican Protestants and Jews. However, a Puritan himself, he did not give Protestants freedom to materialize their sectarian claims in the Commonwealth. He excluded Ranters and Quakers from the policy of toleration, because they were too ecstatic and mystic in practicing their faith and too defiant of the state authority. Of his fellow Puritans, he first dispersed the diggers for their radical demand for land reform, he then destroyed the rebellious levellers in the New Model Army for their mutinies and advocacy of equal right to both men and women, and, finally, he suppressed the militant fifth monarchists, who attracted many Puritan officers and soldiers in the army, for their accusation that he “took the crown off from the head of Christ, and put it upon his own.” Cromwell was an ardent providentialist, inspired by the faith in divine wisdom to guide his policies. He was also a pragmatist, who sought to organize different religions within the framework of a Puritan-styled Church of England. Therefore, he sincerely hoped that his moderate policy of religious tolerance would ultimately ease the century-long religious frictions among his people and transform their inner religious conscience into a civil obligation of obedience of authority in the name of public order. Some of his fellow Puritans, though in the minority, were determined to establish a godly kingdom on earth. The constant clashes between Cromwell and his power base often rendered his policies impracticable in the Commonwealth. foreign policy Cromwell’s foreign policy was brilliantly designed and executed. A staunch antipapist, he did not execute English diplomacy in hopes of a lasting peace with its Catholic rivals on the Continent. However, the Navigation act of 1651 redirected English foreign policy from settling old scores with Catholic France and Spain to meeting new challenges from Calvinist Dutch dominance of international trade and commerce. The act required all international trade of England, both imports and exports, be carried in English ships with one exception: Ships of a country exporting its native-produced goods might be permitted. This act eventually excluded all foreign ships, especially the targeted Dutch ships, from trade profits from the emerging British Empire. The First Dutch War broke out in 1652. Within two years, the antagonistic navies fought nine battles. In 1653, Cromwell ordered a blockade of the Netherlands, and forced the Dutch to agree to a peace dictated by England. A peace treaty was signed in 1654, which recognized English supremacy in the Channel. While the Dutch War was in progress, unrest at home continued to mount with a growing demand for extending voting rights and redistributing property. In April 1653, Cromwell dissolved both the Council of State and the Rump Parliament, replacing them with a new council and the so-called Barebone’s Parliament, comprising 140 members from the New Model Army and local congregations. This government survived for about nine months and was abandoned in December 1653. Soon, the army leaders drafted a new constitution, the Instrument of Government, which entrusted the state authority to Cromwell as Lord Protector, eventually enabling the general to exercise his personal rule over England with the support of the military elites. In next five years, despite English victories over the Dutch in 1654 and over the Spanish island of Jamaica in the West Indies in 1655, Cromwell’s personal rule garnered less and less popular support from the English people. He made a few attempts to restore a parliamen- 96 Cromwell, Oliver tary government, but apparently never figured out how the medieval constitutional formula “King in Parliament” could be adapted to his faith in people’s power under divine guidance. When the general and Lord Protector died in September 1658, his son Richard (1626–72) succeeded him in title and power. Without possessing his father’s charisma, determination, or ability, Richard resigned in May 1659. The army took over the government of the Commonwealth, and its leaders began to contemplate restoring monarchy. In April 1660, General Monck, one of Cromwell’s lieutenants, quietly persuaded the temporarily reinstated Rump Parliament to invite Charles II back to England, and then dissolve itself. The Long Parliament was finally closed. The bloody and unnatural war that had ravaged England for about two decades was finally over, and the Commonwealth was dead. Cromwell’s legacy was temporarily suspended when his body was exhumed from its grave and hanged on a gallows in a macabre form of legal retribution by the monarchists. His spirit, however, would certainly come back in the efforts of other modern revolutionaries. See also Calvin, John; Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe, Puritans and Puritanism; Reformation, the; Stuart, House of (England); Tudor dynasty. Further reading: Ashley, Maurice. Charles I and Oliver Cromwell: A Study in Contrasts and Comparisons. London: Methuen: 1987; Coward, Barry. Cromwell. Essex: Longman, 1991; Gaunt, Peter. Oliver Cromwell. New York: New York University Press, 2004; Gentles, Ian. The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1992; Morrill, John. Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. Essex: Longman, 1990; Stone, Lawrence. The Causes of English Revolution, 1529–1642. Oxford: Routledge, 2002. Wenxi Liu Cuautemoc (d. 1525) Aztec defender Young cousin of Aztec emperor Moctezuma II, married to Moctezuma’s daughter, and the son of Ahuitzotl, Moctezuma’s uncle and the previous Aztec emperor, Cuautemoc assumed command of defense of Tenochtitlán after Hernán Cortés and the Spaniards killed Moctezuma and laid siege to the island-city in June 1521. He had been a lord of Ixtatecpan and royal administrator of Tlatelolco, the “fifth ward” of Tenochtitlán. His name has come to be associated with implacable resistance to the Spanish invasion. His decisive leadership during a catastrophic period in Mexican history is often contrasted to the vacillating stance taken by the emperor Moctezuma. This is seen, for example, in the Codex Ramírez, which has Cuauhtémoc denouncing Moctezuma for his weak leadership immediately prior to the latter’s death in June 1520, an event that preceded the Night of Sorrows in which the Spaniards were forced to flee the island-city. After the siege of Tenochtitlán began, and despite a raging smallpox epidemic and severe shortages of water, food, and other supplies, Cuautemoc refused negotiations and did everything possible to prevent a Spanish victory. According to one account, during the darkest hours of the siege he delivered the following speech: “O Brave Mexicans . . . remember the bold hearts of the Mexica–Chichimeca, our ancestors who, though few in number, dared to enter this land and to conquer it. . . . Therefore, O Mexica, do not be dismayed or cowardly. On the contrary, strengthen your chests and your hearts . . . and . . . do not scorn me because of my youth.” After the Spanish had reduced Tenochtitlán to rubble, they captured Cuautemoc and brought him prisoner before Cortés. “I beg you to end my life” were his reported words to the victorious conquistador. Cortés instead installed him as a figurehead emperor, imprisoned him, and designated lesser notables to take charge of the dayto- day maintenance of the island-city. His empire in ruins, Cuautemoc did everything he could to lessen the suffering of his surviving subjects, supervising the repair of the city’s water supply and other tasks crucial to the health and well-being of the people. Because he and his men were hungry for gold, which they were convinced was hidden somewhere, Cortés had Cuautemoc tortured so he would reveal its location, tying him to a pole, dipping his feet and hands in oil, and setting them aflame. The tortures crippled Cuautemoc for the rest of his life. A prisoner of the Spanish for four years, Cuautemoc died in 1525 at the hands of Cortés, who had him hanged on the pretext of his fomenting rebellion during the latter’s ill-fated overland expedition to Honduras. His memory among Mexicans remains strong, as evidenced by reports of his remains’ being found in Guerrero state in 1949, and by naming practices, most notably Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, a leading political figure of the late 20th century and son of Mexican president Lázaro Cárdenas. Further reading: León-Portillo, Miguel. The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Boston: Cuautemoc 97 Beacon Press, 1992; Thomas, Hugh. Conquest. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. Michael J. Schroeder Cuzco (Peru) Cuzco was the center of the great Inca Empire, located in modern-day Peru. The word cuzco means “navel of the universe.” As in many other civilizations throughout history, this term suggests that the Incas saw themselves as the center of the world. The Inca Empire itself incorporated not just modern-day Peru, but also parts of Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia. Cuzco, with a very pleasant climate, is situated in a valley at an altitude of 3,250 m (10,000 ft.). In terms of pre-Columbian Latin American history, the Incas were relative latecomers to the area, similar to the Aztecs in Mexico. It was really in the 1400s that the Inca Empire flourished. By the time the Spaniards arrived in 1533, the empire had been in existence about 200 years. Modern knowledge of the origins of Cuzco comes from legends. Legend holds that Cuzco was founded by Manco Capac, the first Inca ruler. There are two similar legends regarding the founding of Cuzco. In the first, four brothers and four sisters left a cave just south of Cuzco. One of the siblings carried a golden rod that was stuck into the ground at several points during their travel. As these people were the children of the God of Sun, they were looking for a homeland. When they arrived at Cuzco, only four children were left, one of whom was Manco Cápac. In another version, the God of Sun sent out his two children, one of each gender, from Lake Titicaca. They were told to drive a golden rod into the ground wherever they stopped to rest or eat. The staff would drive into the ground and disappear. According to the legends, it was the place where the staff disappeared that became Cuzco. Despite the legends, archaeologists have determined that the Incas did move to Cuzco, which was previously occupied by a different tribe. Their rule from Cuzco is believed to have begun somewhere around a.d 1200. During the 1300s the Incas were an ordinary tribe residing in the general Cuzco area. The name Inca itself means “ruler,” and this group often fought with other tribes in the area for control of both the land and water. When compared to other South American tribes, the Incas were not initially considered as advanced as others. Using Cuzco as a starting point, the Incas began to raid their neighbors. Many historians have pointed out that the Incas themselves were not so much innovators as they were adapters. Whenever a new tribe or group of people were conquered, the Incas immediately took note of their industrial and artistic strengths, drawing from their knowledge to increase their own. Skilled artisans or artists were often sent to Cuzco to demonstrate their knowledge to the Inca ruler. At its height, Cuzco was a stunningly beautiful city. The temples and palaces were massive and extravagantly decorated with gold. Although the Inca Empire expanded rapidly, it was not necessarily through the use of brute force. Often the Incas would send out a courier to a new tribe or group of people. These people were given a choice— either incorporate into the Inca Empire willingly or military force would be used. Cuzco itself was the target of numerous attacks. Sapa Inca Pachacutic, an Inca king, became a hero for defending Cuzco and calming the areas around the city. He also helped to raise Cuzco back up into a major center for both empire administration and scientific learning. The Incas relied upon the oral tradition to preserve their heritage. Historians know of approximately 11 Peruvians surrounded by the mortarless masonry of the ancient Incas, in Cuzco, Peru 98 Cuzco (Peru) Inca kings; there may have been more, but their names are forgotten. According to Inca heritage, it was better to forget the name of a corrupt person or ruler than to remember that person at all. To be forgotten was considered to be a terrible shame. As an administrative center, Cuzco controlled an empire of approximately 350,000 square miles. The streets of Cuzco were laid out according to a planned, geometric design. There were carefully defined sections of the city. The empire’s best masons were brought in to work on the imperial palaces. Some of the stone blocks used to build the palaces were delicately cut pieces as long as 20 feet. Ordinary houses, however, were made of adobe with a straw thatch. Cuzco was thus a great center for government, religion, commerce, and military life. Great wealth, both public and private, was apparent in Cuzco. But the city was not without its problems. Besides the threat of invasion from outside, many of its residents lived in decadence. Drinking and addiction to coca were major problems. There were no attempts to curb drunkenness on a social level. As for the use of coca, its cultivation was restricted to a specific area. Its use provided the user with great endurance, even without the use of food for nourishment. As opposed to drinking, the Incas restricted the use of coca to those of the upper echelons of society. The conquest of America at the hands of the Spanish is a story well known and documented. In 1533, the conquistador Francisco Pizarro entered the city of Cuzco. The city was swiftly conquered, and plundered. The conquering Spanish then built up Cuzco as a colonial city, even to the point of using the foundations of the Inca buildings that were destroyed or damaged. Cuzco remains a thriving town today. It has good transportation access and a commercial base. Cuzco was hit by a devastating earthquake in 1950, but the town was rebuilt, and most of the ancient buildings were restored. See also Andean religion; Peru, conquest of. Further reading: Brundage, Burr Cartwright. Lords of Cuzco: A History and Description of the Inca People in their Final Days. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1967; Burns, Kathryn. Colonial Habits: Convents and the Spiritual Economy of Cuzco. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999; Dilke, Christopher, ed. Letter to a King. Dilke, NY: E. P. Dutton, 1978; Garrett, David T. Shadows of Empire: The Indian Nobility of Cuzco. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Hyams, Edward, and George Ordish. The Last of the Incas. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963; Keen, Benjamin. A History of Latin America. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. M. Newton-Matza

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

Canadian Confederation Prior to 1867 North American Canada was better described as a collection of Canadas. The Atlantic Maritime provinces focused on fi shing, lumbering, and shipping. Lower Canada was home to New France habitants pushed unwillingly into the British Empire when the Seven Years’ War/French and Indian War ended in 1763. Upper Canada (Ontario) was the hub of British colonial power and wealth. North and west of the Great Lakes, a mixed population of Indians, fur traders, Hudson’s Bay Company agents, and prospectors, many Canadian, others Americans, generally evaded supervision by either of their governments. As early as 1790 in the wake of an American Revolution that fractured British power in North America, proposals emerged for a stronger union among Britain’s remaining colonies. Not until the 1850s, however, did political and opinion leaders become serious about creating a real Canadian nationhood for the country’s 4 million inhabitants. Among the issues at stake were continued fear of U.S. encroachment and economic power and controversial plans to assert control over western lands for the purpose of building a transcontinental railroad. This simmering crisis over Canada’s future came to a head when the United States erupted in Civil War in 1861. As Great Britain’s government considered recognizing the seceding Southern Confederacy, Canada became a handy target for outraged Union supporters who often also harbored designs on Canadian lands. Irish-American nationalists, called Fenians, used Union resentment against Britain to send their own anti-British message by attacking Canadian towns. More devastating to Canada was America’s cancellation, as the Civil War was ending, of a 12-year-old United States/ Canada trade reciprocity agreement vital to most Canadian provinces. Against this backdrop, Canadian politicians began in 1864 to rough out a new plan for union. Although Britain’s parliament would have the fi nal say, the process of creating a new dominion of Canada was very much propelled by local leaders. Infl uential Toronto newspaper editor George Brown proposed a federal Canada, combining the constitutional model of U.S. federalism with Britain’s parliamentary system, but with improvements to both. Powerful politician John A. Macdonald, later fi rst prime minister of a federated Canada, insisted that all of Canada’s provinces would be included. Québec leader George-Étienne Cartier won support among French-Canadians by assuring them that new provincial powers were strong enough to protect French culture and language. As Fenian attacks across the U.S.- Canada border crested in 1866, dominion backers used this threat to attract crucial political support to their plan. On July 1, 1867, after Parliament ratifi ed the British North America Act, the Dominion of Canada was born. The new Canada, although still closely tied to Britain, had moved from colonial dependency to a status much closer to sovereign nationhood. Dominion, of course, did not solve all of Canada’s problems and, indeed, created some new ones. The C Maritimes, especially Nova Scotia, had little interest in sending their tax money to develop the west. Talk of secession was eased by fi nancial and political concessions. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia joined Québec and Ontario in the Dominion in 1869. Prince Edward Island held out until 1873; Newfoundland did not formally join Canada until 1949. Unlike their southern neighbors, Canadians had never adopted Manifest Destiny, the idea that Canadians must dominate their continent from sea to sea. But the possibility of expanding Canada westward was crucial to the success of the dominion plan, and with dominion came the powers necessary to open new territories to immigration, trade, and development. One problem was the role of the Hudson’s Bay Company, a quasi-private fur and sundries trading company founded in 1670 under a royal charter granted by England’s king Charles II. For practical purposes, company offi cers were the overseers, if not the actual governors, of the prairie lands west of Canada proper. The people of this huge territory, many of them members of Indian tribes or of mixed Indian and English or French heritage, were justifi ably alarmed by the new central government’s looming buy-out of “Bay” holdings. In 1869 Canadian surveyors appeared in the Red River region, north of the United States’s North Dakota/ Minnesota border. They imposed new rectangular boundaries that ignored long-established farms and properties. Residents, many of them French, or French- Indian (also known as Métis) threatened violence. Resistance to faraway Canada became better organized under the leadership of Louis Riel, a well-educated Red River native of Métis descent. Seizing the settlement of Fort Garry (now Winnipeg), Riel and his followers demanded negotiations. The Red River Rising of 1869–70 began without bloodshed. But efforts to solve competing claims of territory and authority reawakened ancient hostilities between French, English, and Native Canadians. In March 1870 Riel and his men captured and executed a particularly insolent English opponent. Nonetheless, peace was uneasily maintained. In May 1870 the Red River region formally became part of the new Canadian province of Manitoba. The vast remaining unorganized territories between Manitoba and British Columbia, a Pacifi c coast province since 1858, became Canada’s Northwest Territories. Even when these lands gained provincial status, Ottawa maintained far more control over their affairs than it did in “Old Canada.” By 1885 a private consortium, aided by huge government subsidies and land grants, completed the Canadian Pacifi c Railway, connecting Canada’s new west to the rest of the much-enlarged nation. The same year, the Northwest Rebellion in the new province of Saskatchewan revealed that Canadian federation had not resolved all the racial and sectional grievances of Métis, Native tribes, and other western settlers. Led once again by Riel, by then declining into mental illness, this uprising ended in Riel’s execution, setting off outrage among French-Canadians. Canada in 1885 was a far larger and considerably more independent and developed nation than it had been on July 1, 1867. But it still faced the challenge of truly melding its disparate Canadas into a harmonious whole. See also political parties in Canada; Fenian raids; railroads in North America. Further reading: Creighton, Donald. The Road to Confederation: The Emergence of Canada, 1863–1867. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976; Martin, Ged. Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation. Basingstoke, Hampshire, England: Macmillan, 1995. Marsha E. Ackermann Canton system In mid-18th century the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty of China confi ned all foreign traders to the port of Canton (Guangzhou) in southern China and restricted trade. In Canton, all merchants were banned from direct contact with Chinese offi cials and were confi ned to an area of 13 factories, located outside the city walls. All foreign traders lived in quarters that came to be known by locals as factories. Since no women were allowed to enter these factories, the nearest families were housed in Macao, a nearby town that the previous Ming dynasty had ceded to Portugal. The area became the center of foreign trade in China. While in Canton, all trade was controlled by the Chinese merchants, known as hongs, who imported goods from inland China to trade with the merchants who arrived in Canton each year. The responsibility for overseeing Canton trading activities and for collecting all taxes was delegated by the emperor to a hoppo. The hoppo and the guild of hong merchants were held accountable for all transactions, including the behavior of all foreign merchants. As the foreign ships arrived in Canton, they were inspected by Chinese offi cials and assessed tariffs, and the Chinese frequently demanded bribes. Since they were 74 Canton system banned from learning Chinese, all traders were forced to hire local interpreters. The Canton system of trade created resentment that was particularly strong among British traders who expected more respect of the foreign trade in China. However, as long as the foreign traders were greedy for Chinese goods such as tea, silk, porcelain, and lacquerware, they were forced to accept China’s terms. In return for Chinese goods, the hong merchants imported tin, copper, lead, iron, wool, cotton, and linen. Up to the end of the 18th century, China enjoyed a trade balance with Great Britain. In June 1793 King George III of Great Britain dispatched Lord George Macartney as ambassador to China to meet with Emperor Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung) and request that China open up other ports for trading and other concessions. The emperor responded that compliance with Macartney’s requests was inconsistent with “dynastic usage.” He also summarily refused the king’s request to open up additional ports. By 1800 foreign traders had discovered a product that an increasing number of Chinese demanded: opium. Approximately 40,000 chests, each containing 133 pounds of opium, were being imported into Canton each year by the 1830s. Although opium was banned, foreign traders continued to smuggle it into the country. In an effort to call a halt to such smuggling, Emperor Daoguang (Tao-kuang) charged Lin Zexu (Lin Tse-Hsu) with the task of ending the opium trade in China in 1839. Lin immediately set about reinforcing China’s laws. Raids upon local opium dens netted thousands of opium pipes, but large quantities of opium remained in foreign hands. Commissioner Lin next issued a two-pronged ultimatum to all foreign opium traders. They could either leave China immediately, or they could surrender all opium to offi cials. Failure to comply would result in their being prohibited in carrying out legitimate trade. A number of traders chose to leave China, some signed a bond, but others took a wait-and-see attitude. British traders developed a plan whereby they would surrender only a few chests as tokens. Lin was not deceived and continued the standoff. Lin then removed all Chinese servants from the offending factories. The standoff lasted 47 days before the British traders surrendered some 20,000 chests of opium containing over 3 million pounds of raw opium. The opium of British merchants was fi rst handed over to the British superintendent of trade in Canton, which made it British government property. Elliot then handed the chests over to the commissioner, Lin, who had them destroyed. Major problems, however, remained unresolved between China and Britain, culminating in war. The fi rst Anglo-Chinese Opium War (1839–42) resulted in British victory. The Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking) ended the hong system and Canton’s special position as the only port of entry in China’s trade with the West. See also Macartney mission to China. Further reading: Bickers, Robert A., ed. Ritual and Diplomacy: The Macartney Mission to China, 1792–1794. London: The British Association for Chinese Studies, 1993; Fairbanks, John King, ed. The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Elizabeth Purdy Catherine the Great (1729–1796) Russian czarina When Czarina Elizabeth died in December 1761, her nephew Peter ascended the throne. He had already alienated his wife, Catherine (Sophia Augusta, the princess of Anhalt-Zerbst in the Holy Roman Empire), by his evident lack of affection for her. Some historians believe that their son Paul was actually fathered by her lover Sergei Saltykov, a rumor believed at the time by Czarina Elizabeth prior to her death. Catherine lived in fear that without the czarina’s protection, Peter might do away with her. He already had had at least one mistress, Elizabeth Vorontzov. Catherine decided to strike fi rst, for she knew that if Peter killed her, he might have Paul killed too. Besides his wife, Peter III had also alienated the most important political force in the capital of St. Petersburg, the regiments of the Russian Imperial Guard. Although Catherine was German by birth, she had successfully won over the Guards during the years since her fi rst appearance at court. To them, she was a Russian czarina, and Peter III a German usurper. Assured of the Guards’ support by her current lover, Gregori Orlov, himself an offi cer in the Ismailovski Regiment, his brother Alexei Orlov, and other offi cers, Catherine seized power from Peter III in a coup on June 28, 1762. In her manifesto Catherine declared that Peter III had intended to “destroy us completely and to deprive us of life.” Peter was forced to abdicate and on July 6 was killed, apparently in a quarrel with one of those Catherine the Great 75 guarding him. Whether Catherine was a party to his death, historians will never really know. But with Peter removed from the scene, she most likely slept more soundly than she had in years. On September 22, 1762, Catherine was crowned empress and autocrat of all the Russias. Although the Imperial Guards regiments had supported her, some of them still felt a sovereign from the Romanov dynasty should rule them, not a Germanborn princess. To tighten her control of the Guards, and the rest of society, Catherine reinstituted the secret police that Peter had abolished in one of his enlightened reforms. Catherine’s secret branch became the model for the Okhrana, the special police who would serve the czars until the very end. Foreign affairs fi rst claimed her attention as Russia struggled with the aftermath of the Seven Years’ War. In 1763 Augustus III of Poland died, and the Poles began the process of electing a new king in their Sejm, or parliament. As the elector of Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire, Augustus’s son Frederick Christian automatically became the elector, but there was dissension over who would succeed him as king of Poland. Catherine favored Stanislas Poniatowski to succeed Augustus as king, partly became Stanislas had once been her lover, and she wanted a friendly Poland. With the weight of the huge Russian army tilting the scales now in his favor, Stanislas was duly elected the next king by the Polish Sejm as Stanislas II Augustus in 1764. Ironically, Poland would become the means of fi nally making peace among the belligerent nations of the Seven Years’ War. Prussia, supported by England, had fought against the Austrian Empire, France, and Russia during the confl ict. In an attempt to make peace among them, the three eastern powers, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, decided to partition Poland. The fi rst partition took place in 1772, to be followed by subsequent partitions in 1793 and 1795. By the Third Partition of Poland in 1795, Poland no longer existed as a state, and Stanislas II, without a kingdom to rule, abdicated his no-longer-existing throne. It would not be until the aftermath of World War I that Poland would rise again as an independent nation. With Russia’s western front secured, Catherine now moved against Russia’s traditional enemies to the south and east, the Ottoman Empire and its vassals, the khans of the Crimea, the Gerei dynasty. In 1768 Catherine began war against the Ottoman Empire, now in its decline under the sultan Mustafa III. On July 10, 1774, the Russians under Field Marshal Peter Rumiantsev and the Turks signed a peace at the village of Kuchuk-Kainardji in the Balkans. Russia gained full access to the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Sea and the independence of the Crimean khanate from Ottoman rule. In return, Russia returned much of the lands in the Balkans and along the Danube that it had conquered from the Turks. But it was evident that the Russians reserved the right to intervene at any time in the region. This became the bedrock of the Pan-Slav movement of the 19th century, when the Russians felt themselves to be the particular protectors of the Slavs who still lived under Turkish rule in the Balkans. In 1778 the Turks launched a fl eet on the Black Sea to send an expeditionary force to help the foundering Crimean khanate, but the Turkish fl eet sailed aimlessly in the Black Sea until foul weather forced it to seek refuge at the Ottoman naval base at Sinope. In 1783 Catherine II’s new favorite, Prince Grigori Potemkin, threatened the khanate with a Russian invasion. Bahadur II Gerei, the last of his dynasty, abdicated to be pensioned off by Catherine II, now becoming known as Catherine the Great. The great campaigns, however, had thrust an intolerable burden onto the peasants, the vast majority of the Russian population. The policy of serfdom, reducing peasants to virtual slaves on the great landownings of the nobility, had by now reached most of Russia. The need for weapons for the wars had put inhuman demands on the workers in the Ural mines, and often soldiers had to be sent in to quell labor disputes. In 1773 a Yaik Cossack by the name of Emilian Pugachev proclaimed that he was Peter III, who had come back to save the Russians from the tyranny of “the German woman.” With her forces largely committed to the war with the Turks, Catherine’s military resources were limited. Pugachev seized the great city of Kazan, and Nizhni-Novgorod, the third city of her empire, was destroyed when the serfs there rose in support of Czar Peter. When she saw that Pugachev might reach Moscow, and perhaps St. Petersburg, Catherine brought her troops home. With the return of thousands of her veteran troops, the tide turned rapidly against Pugachev. On January 10, 1775, he was beheaded in Moscow. The experience with the Pugachev rebellion did not deter Catherine from her desire to modernize Russia. A self-educated woman, she corresponded regularly with the leaders of the Enlightenment, like Voltaire and Denis Diderot in France. Among Catherine’s initiatives to modernize Russia were the abolition of torture (even with Pugachev) and the encouragement of industrial and agricultural growth. She also extended equal rights to the empire’s Muslim population, which had grown 76 Catherine the Great greatly with the annexation of the Crimea after 1783. They were given the right to build mosques, although, as with all religions, Islam was kept under scrutiny by the state, and the Russian Orthodox Church remained paramount in the empire. By the late 1770s Catherine had become to see herself as a peacemaker in Europe. On December 30, 1777, Maximilian Joseph, the elector of Bavaria, died. Frederick II of Prussia was pitted against the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, who ruled jointly with her son, Emperor Joseph ii. Although Frederick began the War of the Bavarian Succession in April 1778, neither side was anxious for another bloody war like the Seven Years’ War of 1756 to 1763. Although Catherine favored Frederick, both sides accepted her mediation, and the war came to an end at the Peace of Teschen in April 1779. Both Austria and Prussia received Bavarian territory in compensation, but the new elector ruled a free Bavaria as Charles Theodore. By this time, Catherine had to face a threat from an unexpected quarter. For nearly 60 years, the thoughts of the French Enlightenment, enlivened by her friends Voltaire and Diderot, had undermined popular support for the Bourbon dynasty in France. In July 1789 revolution broke out in France, sending shock waves throughout the monarchies of Europe. Even worse was to come when, during the Turkish War, King Louis XVI of France was beheaded in Paris in January 1793 by the revolutionary Committee of Public Safety. The shock to Catherine was severe—the ideas of the very men she had supported and felt were her allies had led to the death of a king. In 1793, with the countries that had invaded France thrown back, the armies of revolutionary France began to spread the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity throughout Europe against the forces of the First Coaliton, of which Russia was a member. Nobody will ever be fully able to gauge the result of the revolutionary upheaval upon Catherine the Great, but her beliefs in progress and enlightened rule were totally shaken by the upheavals upsetting the Old Order in Europe. On November 6, 1796, following a massive stroke, Catherine died, having ruled Russia for 34 years. Whatever the results of the French Revolution, neither Europe nor Russia would ever be the same again after the reign of Czarina Ekaterina, Empress Catherine the Great. See also Poland, partitions of. Further reading: Bartlett, Roger. A History of Russia. New York: Palgrave, 2005; Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. The New Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996; Erickson, Carolly. Great Catherine: The Life of Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994; Hingley, Ronald. Russia: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2003; Troyat, Henri. Catherine the Great. Pinkham, Joan, trans. New York: Meridian, 1994. John F. Murphy, Jr. caudillos and caudillismo Understanding the phenomenon of the caudillo is essential for understanding the political history of 19th-century Latin America. (The terms caudillismo and caudillaje refer to the more general phenomenon of rule by caudillos.) While there is no universal defi nition that fi ts every caudillo under all circumstances, scholars generally agree on a cluster of attributes that most caudillos caudillos and caudillismo 77 A monument to Empress Catherine the Great in Vilna. Her reign encompassed several wars, but she saw herself as a peacemaker. shared and that together provide a viable working defi - nition of the caudillo phenomenon. In general, a caudillo was a political-military strongman who wielded political authority and exercised political and military power by virtue of personal charisma, control of resources such as land and property, the personal loyalty of his followers and clients, reliance on extensive clientage networks, the capacity to dispense patronage and resources to clients, and personal control of the means of organized violence. Some caudillos were also distinguished by their exceptional personal courage, physical prowess, or ability to lead men in battle. Many also displayed a kind of hypermasculinity and macho swagger that emphasized their maleness in explicitly sexualized terms. In many ways, the keyword is personal: a caudillo was a type of leader, marked by his style of leadership, and most defi ned by the personal nature of his rule. Constitutions, state bureaucracies, representative assemblies, periodic elections—these and other institutional constraints on individual and personal power, commonly associated with modern state forms, all were antithetical to the caudillo style of rule, while also often coexisting in tension with it. Ideology mattered little, as caudillos ran the gamut from populist revolutionaries to moderate liberals to staunch conservatives. There is broad agreement that the shorter-term origins of caudillismo can be traced to the tumult of the independence period, as local and regional military chieftains emerged in the fi ght against the Spanish. A paradigmatic example is José Antonio Páez of the Venezuelan plains (llanos), “totally uneducated, illiterate, and unurbanized, reared in the sun, rain, and ranges of the llanos . . . built like an ox, bloodthirsty, suspicious, and cunning . . . an unrivalled guerrilla leader” who went on to become one of Simón Bolívar’s key allies, and, in 1830, fi rst president of the Republic of Venezuela, where he dominated political life for the next third of a century. The process by which regional chieftains like Páez became national leaders is the subject of an extensive literature. At the opposite end of the spectrum from Páez, in terms of both his personal background and rise to power, was the Argentine caudillo Juan Manuel de Rosas. Scion of an elite porteño (Buenos Aires) Creole family, Rosas left the port city as a young man to become a cattle rancher and property owner in the pampas of the interior, living and working among the gauchos, from whom he demanded absolute obedience and loyalty, and among whom he developed his base of social support. In this he represented the rising class of estancieros (estate owners) whose wealth and power were based not on inherited privilege or control of state offi ces but on control of land, men, and resources. Rosas did not participate in the independence battles against Spain but became a key player in the subsequent struggles that defi ned the shape of post-independence Argentina. Rosas was opposed to the liberal, unitarian, modernizing regime of Bernardino Rivadavia, whose policies were designed to make Buenos Aires equal with the other provinces of the Río de la Plata. His opposition to Rivadavia was not rooted in ideology but in the belief that Buenos Aires should retain its superior power. With his base of support secure, Rosas allied with the federalists who overthrew Rivadavia. Soon after, he became the governor of Buenos Aires and then absolute dictator. His style of leadership was profoundly personal: All power and authority fl owed directly from him. Dispensing favors and patronage to his loyal allies, he also terrorized his foes, in part through his feared mazorca (literally, “ears of corn”—effectively, “enforcers”), a kind of goon squad responsible for upward of 2,000 murders during his years in power. Rosas was overthrown and exiled in 1852. Other 19th-century caudillos demonstrated variations on these general themes. The Mexican Creole and self-proclaimed founder of the republic and caudillo of independence José Antonio López de Santa Ana was fi rst and foremost a political opportunist—beginning his career as a royalist army offi cer in the service of Spain, donning the mantle of pro-independence liberalism and federalism in the 1820s, and switching sides again to become a staunch conservative and centralist from the mid-1830s. What remained consistent was his style of leadership: the cultivation of personal loyalty via the calculated dispensation of patronage and favors to clients and allies, the ruthless crushing of foes, and ostentatious displays and titles intended to glorify his person and inculcate unquestioned loyalty among his followers. One could continue in this vein, identifying individual caudillos who came to dominate the political lives of their nations—the populist folk caudillo Rafael Carrera in Guatemala, the dictator Porfi rio Díaz in Mexico, and many others. Scholars have proposed various caudillo typologies, distinguishing between the cultured caudillo and the barbarous caudillo, for instance, or identifying the consular caudillo, the super caudillo, and the folk caudillo, among others. The multiplicity of types suggests the tremendous variability of the phenomenon. 78 caudillos and caudillismo Not all caudillos were national leaders, however. More often they remained lesser fi gures who dominated their own locales or regions—men like Juan Facundo Quiroga and Martín Güemes in the Argentine interior, Juan Nepomuceno Moreno of Colombia, and many others. Not uncommonly, at local and regional levels, and in areas with substantial Indian populations, the phenomenon of the caudillo melded with that of the cacique, a local or regional political-military strongman, who deployed the same basic repertoire of techniques and styles of personalized rule and patronage-clientage to dominate regions, provinces, towns, and villages. Indeed, the rule of national caudillos was predicated on the support of local and regional strongmen who served as their loyal and subordinate clients, who in turn dominated their own locales. Thus there emerged in many areas a kind of hierarchical network of caudillo power, with the primary caudillo dominant over numerous lesser secondary caudillos, in turn dominant over numerous lesser tertiary caudillos, and so on down the chain of loyalty, alliance, and patronage-clientage. Modernizing elites desirous of creating more modern state forms were among the most vociferous opponents of caudillo rule. A classic critique is the work of Argentine statesman and scholar Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, whose infl uential and scathing biography, Facundo (or, Civilizacion y barbarie, vida de Juan Facundo), fi rst published in 1845, decried the rule of “primitive” caudillos like Facundo and Rosas, while framing the caudillo phenomenon in the broader context of the epic struggle between civilization and barbarism. There is no scholarly consensus on when the caudillo phenomenon ended, or even if it has ended. Some point to the fi rst half of the 19th century as the heyday of caudillos and caudillismo; others argue that the phenomenon continued into the 20th century and after, transmuting into various forms of populism and dictatorship, and manifest in the likes of Juan Perón of Argentina, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Despite vigorous debates over definitions, origins, periodization, and other aspects, however, few disagree that understanding the phenomenon of the caudillo and caudillismo is essential to understanding the political evolution of post-independence Latin America. See also Latin America, independence in; Latin America, machismo and marianismo in. Further reading. Hamill, Hugh M., ed. Caudillos: Dictators in Spanish America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992; Lynch, John. The Spanish-American Revolutions, 1808–1826. New York: Norton, 1973; ———. Caudillos in Spanish America, 1800–1850. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Michael J. Schroeder Cavour, Camillo Benso di (1810–1861) Italian statesman Count Camillo Benso di Cavour was an Italian statesman who forged the unifi ed Kingdom of Italy. Cavour was born in northwestern Italy in Turin, the capital of Piedmont-Sardinia, ruled by the House of Savoy. Cavour was earmarked for an army career, and he enrolled in the military academy of Turin. Because of his liberal views, however, he had to leave the army in 1831. He then administered the family’s estate. Cavour traveled widely in Europe, visiting France, Switzerland, and Great Britain, and his journeys reinforced his dislike for absolutism and clericalism. Witnessing the constitutional monarchy of France under King Louis-Philippe, he became a strong supporter of constitutionalism. Originally, Cavour was interested in making Piedmont powerful rather than pursuing Italian unifi cation. Convinced that economic reconstruction had to precede political change, he argued for free trade and railroad construction in the Italian Peninsula. His mind gradually changed, and he began to dream of a united Italy free of foreign infl uence. With the election of the liberal Pope Pius IX in 1846, Cavour felt that the chance to advocate reform had come. Generally, Cavour did not believe that the pope would play a leading role in the unifi cation movement. Instead, Cavour looked to King Charles Albert of Piedmont to implement the national program. In 1847 Cavour founded Il Risorgimento (“The Resurgence,” later a term for the unifi cation of Italy), a newspaper advocating liberalism and unifi cation. As editor, Cavour became a powerful fi gure in Piedmontese politics. During 1848 a wave of revolutions swept Europe. Demonstrations in Genoa called for liberalization of the state, and Cavour supported the demands for a constitution in Il Risorgimento. Pressured by the infl uential paper and by the dissent in his kingdom, Charles Albert complied on February 8, 1848. Cavour then urged the king to declare war against Austria, which ruled much of Italy at the time. Word arrived that the people of Milan on March 18, 1848, had initiated a war against the Austrians. Bowing to Cavour, Camillo Benso di 79 pressure from Cavour’s party, Charles Albert declared war on Austria. Piedmont was defeated, but liberalism and nationalism were still strong. Charles Albert abdicated in favor of his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Under the new monarch, Cavour’s career fl ourished. He became minister of agriculture and commerce in 1850 and minister of fi nance in 1851, fi nally becoming prime minister at the end of 1852. Cavour capitalized on the antipapal sentiment in Italy following Pius IX’s refusal to wage war upon Austria. The defeat of 1848 also convinced Cavour of the need for a powerful ally to separate Austria from Italy. Cavour worked hard to strengthen the state, reorganizing its army, fi nancial system, and bureaucracy. He also encouraged the development of industry, railroads, and factories, making Piedmont one of the most modernized European states of the time. In 1854 Piedmont entered the Crimean War as an ally of Great Britain and France in exchange for promises that the future of Italy would be considered an urgent issue with international scope. In 1856 Cavour presented the Italian case before the peace Congress of Paris. He succeeded in isolating Austria, compromising France in the Italian question, and getting the condition of Italy discussed by the great powers, who agreed that some remedy was in order. Cavour now saw that war with Austria was merely a question of time, and he began to establish connections with revolutionists of all parts of Italy. He sought to ingratiate himself with Napoleon III, emperor of the French, whose support he considered crucial to avenge the defeat of 1848–49. Napoleon sympathized with the plan for a northern Italian kingdom, and in July 1858, the two plotted against Austria. Piedmont would be united with Tuscany, a truncated Papal State, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Napoleon promised that if Austria were to attack Piedmont-Sardinia, France would come to its aid. Cavour immediately set to provoking Austria into war, and in April 1859 Austria attacked. However, after victories at Magenta and Solferino, Napoleon signed an armistice, without informing his allies. The treaty allowed Austria to keep Venetia, but Piedmont received only Lombardy. Cavour, unwilling to accept the terms, resigned. The situation soon reversed itself when the citizens of Tuscany, Modena, Parma, Bologna, and Romagna voted in March 1860 to become part of Piedmont- Sardinia. Cavour returned to power in January 1860. Soon afterward, the Italian patriot Giuseppe Garibaldi led his famous army of 1,000 adventurers into the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The Neapolitan government fell, and Garibaldi entered Naples in triumph. Following the collapse of the Neapolitan kingdom, Cavour engineered its annexation. He also managed to occupy the greater part of the Papal States, avoiding the city of Rome because Napoleon was pledged to protect the pope. Cavour’s dream, save for Rome and Venetia, was now realized, and Italy was nearly united. On March 17, 1861, Cavour had the Piedmontese parliament proclaim Victor Emmanuel king of Italy. The parliament also proclaimed Rome the future capital, hoping to resolve the question through an agreement with the church. Three months later, Cavour died. Cavour’s political ideas were greatly infl uenced by the Revolution of 1830 in France, which proved to him that a monarchy was not incompatible with liberal principles. A strong belief in liberalism, an extensive knowledge of technology, and the dream of a unifi ed Italy allowed Cavour to unite Italy and to modernize his country both politically and technologically. When he died, his work had been carried far enough that others could complete it. Cavour is undoubtedly the greatest fi gure of the Risorgimento. It was Cavour who organized it and skillfully conducted the negotiations that overcame all obstacles. See also French Revolution. Further reading: Coppa, Frank J. Camillo di Cavour. Farmington Hills, MI: Twayne Publishers, 1973; Hearder, Harry. Cavour. New York: Longman, 1994; Murtaugh, Frank M. Cavour and the Economic Modernization of the Kingdom of Sardinia. New York: Garland Publishers, 1991; Salvadori, Massimo. Cavour and the Unifi cation of Italy. Totowa, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961; Smith, Denis Mack. Cavour. New York: Knopf, 1985. Martin Moll Central America: National War The term National War in Central America refers to the combined military efforts of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to defeat the forces of Tennessee-born U.S. fi libuster William Walker in 1856–57. The Walker episode represented the pinnacle of 19th-century U.S. fi libustering, or private mercenary efforts to invade, dominate, and govern territories in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean Basin. The war against Walker briefl y united Central America’s fractious nation-states, while its aftermath ushered 80 Central America: National War in a period of elite convergence and relative political stability in Nicaragua that endured into the early 20th century. Nicaraguans tend to remember the Walker episode as the fi rst instance of U.S. imperialist meddling in their country’s internal affairs, providing a touchstone for anti-imperialist and nationalist sentiments well into the 20th century. That popular memory also tends to suppress key features of a war that all observers agree left a deep imprint on isthmian history. In early 1855 Nicaraguan Liberals, based in the city of León, contracted with the soldier of fortune Walker, the self-proclaimed “Grey-Eyed Man of Destiny,” in their ongoing civil confl ict against that country’s Conservatives, based in the city of Granada. The roots of the confl ict between León’s Liberals and Granada’s Conservatives were complex, based on regional, political, and ideological divisions, and the efforts of elites in both regions to dominate the country’s post-independence state. The origins of Nicaraguan Liberals’s invitation to Walker can also be traced to their experience with U.S. travelers and businessmen in the transisthmian route across Nicaragua that developed in the wake of the California gold rush after 1849, most notably U.S. magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt’s Accessory Transit Company, which began operations in 1851. The 31-year-old Walker had gained fame principally in his unsuccessful fi libustering ventures in Baja California and Sonora, Mexico, in 1853–54. Offering Walker and his fellow mercenaries 250 acres of land each following the Conservatives’s defeat, León’s Liberals were shocked when, following his army’s victory in October 1855 and his usurpation of the presidency in July 1856, Walker launched a concerted effort to remake Nicaragua according to his own designs. Reinstituting African slavery (abolished in 1824), he also sought to seize all state power, disfranchise the elites, confi scate elite properties, and transform the country into a Protestant slaveholding patrician society modeled on the U.S. South. His brazen power grab unifi ed elites across Central America, who feared the loss of their own privileges and power. Costa Rican forces, entering the country from the south, fought Walker’s forces in April 1856, followed in July by the invasion from the north of a combined army of over 1,000 Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans. A series of hard-fought battles followed, as Walker’s army, stung by the desertion of most native troops, retreated to its strongholds in Granada and Rivas. Hemmed in on all sides, Walker ordered the burning of Granada. For Nicaraguans, the complete destruction of the old colonial city by Walker’s drunken fi libusters ranks among the most horrifi c and memorable episodes of the confl ict. With the crucial intervention of Cornelius Vanderbilt, with whom Walker had made a powerful enemy, Walker’s forces surrendered on May 1, 1857. He made three further attempts to reestablish his regime; during the last, in 1860, the British navy captured him and Honduran authorities executed him. In Central America, the National War is chiefl y remembered as the fi rst instance of U.S. imperialist and military meddling on the isthmus—even though the U.S. government played only a marginal role in the confl ict. The war discredited Nicaragua’s Liberals, who joined Conservatives in a series of governments that led to the most peaceful and stable period in post-independence Nicaraguan history to that time. What Nicaraguans and Central Americans tend not to emphasize is the role of León’s Liberals in inviting Walker in the fi rst place and the warm embrace he received during his fi rst year. The National War and its aftermath shaped isthmian politics in enduring ways, especially in fostering anti–United States nationalist sentiments and continue to occupy an important position in the collective memory of Central Americans, especially in Nicaragua. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Latin America, economic and political liberalism in; slave trade in Africa. Further reading. Berman, Karl. Under the Big Stick: Nicaragua and the United States since 1848. Boston: South End Press, 1986; Burns, E. Bradford. Patriarch and Folk: The Emergence of Nicaragua, 1798–1858. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991; Gobat, Michel. Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. Michael J. Schroeder Ceylon: Dutch to British colony The Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka in 1505 and took over the kingdoms of Kotte and Jaffna, with the kingdom of Kandy, largely because of its geographical position in the center of the island, managing to remain free of their rule. Thus, when the Dutch admiral George Spilberg landed on the east coast in the early 17th century, he was welcomed by the king of Kandy, who invited the Dutch to settle on the east coast of the Ceylon: Dutch to British colony 81 island. He saw that this would provide an important counterbalance to the Portuguese. The fi rst Dutch settlement was established in 1640 with William Jacobszoon Coster as the governor. In June 1640 Coster was murdered and replaced by Jan Thyssen Payart, who had started establishing farms to grow cinnamon for export to Europe. It was the fi fth governor, Adriaan van der Meijden, who decided to move decisively against the Portuguese. In 1658 he managed to drive them off the island, and the Dutch then gradually took over the south of the island, then the southwest and western coast. When they took over the entire east coast of the island in 1665, even though Kandy remained independent, they controlled all the ports. By 1765 the Dutch were in control of the entire coastline, and Kandy only held the isolated highlands in the center of the island that were too diffi cult to attack. Offi cially the island was a possession of the Dutch East India Company, and it appointed a governor based in Colombo who ruled Ceylon as a colony. Most governors were only in Ceylon for short periods, but some had a lasting effect on the place. Jan Maetsuyker, governor from 1646 until 1650—before the Dutch took control of the whole island—relaxed laws on mixed marriages to try to encourage Dutch merchants to marry, assimilate, and remain on the island. He felt that this might allow them to compete with local merchants on a much stronger basis. In contrast, Jacob van Kittensteijn, his successor from 1650 until 1653, regarded the local wives of merchants as being “vicious and immoral.” The situation changed again after the capture of Colombo and Jaffna in 1656–58 with some 200 Dutch soldiers and merchants marrying into the Indo-Portuguese community— many of these being the wives of Portuguese who were unceremoniously deported. Rijklof van Goens, one of the longest serving governors (who had captured Jaffna), governed 1662–63 and again 1665–75. He encouraged mixed marriages—or indeed any marriages— to try to build up an indigenous Dutch settler population. However, he legislated that daughters of mixed marriages should marry Dutchmen. This had the result of ensuring that there were large numbers of people on the island with Dutch surnames. Rijklof van Goens was succeeded as governor by his son and then by Laurens Pijl from 1679 until 1692. These three governors provided much stability for the colonial infrastructure of the island, which was divided into three parts: Colombo, Galle, and Jaffna. The latter two parts had commanders who reported to the governor, whereas the governor ruled the area around Colombo himself, with the assistance of a small nominated council. Lower levels of the bureaucracy were staffed by Sinhalese or Tamils who originated from southern India. The Sinhalese nobility kept their privileges, and, with no worry of invasion or civil war, they actually considerably increased their wealth. The Dutch recognized Portuguese land titles (in contrast to their actions in Malacca and elsewhere), and they widened the private ownership of land, which for the Portuguese had only operated in urban areas. This resulted in the massive settlement of fertile land, with Dutch and largely Sinhalese businessmen and farmers being able to establish considerable land holdings. There were attempts to codify the local laws, but this proved much more complicated than expected. The result was that Dutch laws gradually came to apply to the cities and much of the coastal regions, especially in areas dominated by the Sinhalese. Muslim laws applied to Muslims on the east coast, and the Thesawalamai laws used by the Tamils of Jaffna were codifi ed in 1707 and used there, although Christians there were subject to Dutch laws. RELIGION In the area of religion, when the Dutch took Ceylon there were, nominally, about 250,000 Sinhalese and Tamil Roman Catholics, a quarter of these from the region around Jaffna. The Dutch banned Roman Catholicism, ejected all Catholic priests, and made it illegal for any to operate on the island. They also set about converting many of the local people to Calvinism. Roman Catholic churches were changed into Reformed churches, and many Catholics converted to Calvinism in name only, while others reverted to Hinduism or Buddhism. However, a shortage of Dutch ministers held up these plans, and Roman Catholics operated underground, especially from the Portuguese-held port of Goa, in India. Although the Portuguese had made much revenue from Ceylon, the Dutch set about methodically expanding the revenue base of the country. The Portuguese had relied heavily on tariffs and obligatory labor for a certain number of days each year by the poor (in lieu of taxes); the Dutch maintained these but started establishing large plantations for cinnamon, which rapidly became the mainstay of the Dutch colonial economic structure in Ceylon. The Dutch East India Company maintained a monopoly not only over the export of cinnamon but also over areca nuts, pearls, and elephants. They were particularly anxious to control the Ceylon economy tightly, and imports from India were so heavily restricted that 82 Ceylon: Dutch to British colony occasionally there were shortages of rice and textiles in Colombo. Gradually, some private traders were allowed to bring in these and some other goods, but the Dutch East India Company jealously guarded its monopolies. With the Napoleonic Wars and the French invasion of the Netherlands and the deposing of the Dutch king, the British set about occupying Dutch colonies around the world to prevent them falling into French hands. As a result, in 1796 the British—strictly speaking the British East India Company—took control of Ceylon, defeating the small Dutch force, which made a symbolic but futile resistance. The British placed the island under military rule and governed it from their settlement at Madras, as they expected to return Ceylon to the Dutch at the end of the war. However, the British quickly discovered the importance of the island—strategically as well as fi nancially. In 1802 Ceylon was declared to be a British Crown Colony, and the British hold over the island was confi rmed by the Treaty of Amiens later the same year. The initial problem facing the British was the kingdom of Kandy in central Ceylon. Although the Dutch had managed to seize the entire coastline, they had never been able to subdue the independent kingdom. The British had recognized the sovereignty of the king of Kandy, but Robert Brownrigg, governor from 1812 until 1820, had other ideas. He found that the frontier between British territory and Kandy was a little uncertain in places and to guard it was extremely expensive. Furthermore it would obviously be far easier if the British controlled the entire island, which would remove political insecurity and help with communications around the island. SOME PRIVILEGES An early British attempt to attack Kandy in 1803 failed. However, Brownrigg took advantage of a crisis in Kandy. Making an alliance with some Kandyan nobles, in 1815 he sent soldiers into the kingdom and captured it. Kandyans were guaranteed some privileges and were able to preserve customary laws and institutions, as well as having religious freedoms. However, many Sinhalese saw the erosion of the independence of Kandy as a part of a wider attack on Buddhism. This led to a large Sinhalese revolt that took place in 1818. It was suppressed, and Kandy was then integrated with the rest of Ceylon. The British also introduced a new fl ag for Ceylon. It had a blue fi eld with the Union fl ag in the corner, as with other British colonies, and a design showing an elephant in front of a stupa to represent Ceylon. British moves in Ceylon, as with the Dutch, were to increase revenue, and more land was taken as the number of plantations increased, many owned by British companies. As well as growing cinnamon, the British set about cultivating, on a large scale, pepper, sugarcane, and coffee. They even experimented with cotton. Coincident with this, the British also instituted many reforms. Slavery was abolished, and salaries were now paid in cash rather than in land and food. The British also relaxed the need for people to provide compulsory labor for the government each year. Many Sinhalese and Tamils, however, especially in rural areas, did resent the increase in missionary activity by British and South Indian church groups. In 1833 Robert Wilmot-Horton, who had become governor two years earlier, enacted a widespread series of reforms that essentially adopted a unitary administrative and judicial framework for the whole island. Special rights afforded to particular groups were abrogated; this would massively affect all of Ceylon, whose people gradually came to see themselves as Ceylonese. English became the language of government and also the medium of instruction in schools, which had increased massively in number in the 1820s and early 1830s. As well as this, Wilmot-Horton reduced the powers of the governor, who could no longer rule by decree. He established executive and legislative councils that would govern. The latter were initially comprised of British offi cials, but gradually unoffi cial members were appointed representing business interests. On an economic front, the British abolished state monopolies and also fi nally ended the right of the colonial government to demand labor services in lieu of taxes. Crown land was sold to cultivators, and this caused the establishment of many more small plantations and the growth of the coffee industry. From the 1830s until the 1870s there was a massive expansion in the areas where coffee was under cultivation. The planters survived the collapse in the coffee price in 1847 and gradually, as more coffee plantations were established, there was a need for a cheap labor force, and many Tamil laborers from South India started to migrate to Ceylon, leading to a substantial Tamil population by the end of the 19th century. Unfortunately, in 1869 a rust disease started attacking coffee crops. By 1871 it had devastated the coffee industry, and there was much discussion about what could productively be done with the land to maintain employment for both plantation managers and their staff. There had been a small tea industry in Ceylon since the 1860s—largely for local consumption. This Ceylon: Dutch to British colony 83 was expanded from the late 1870s with tea bushes being grown on slopes of the hill country where the land was able to be drained easily. Rubber and coconut plantations were also developed but never rivaled the tea industry, with Ceylon tea becoming well-known throughout the British Empire. Later, the tea industry was so identifi ed with the island that it was able to use the traditional lion, from the fl ag of Ceylon (Sri Lanka after independence), to symbolize Ceylon tea. Most of the infrastructure of colonial Ceylon was built by the British in the latter half of the 19th century: ports, public buildings, hospitals, roads and railways, schools, and a reliable postal and telegraph system. However, many of the problems that were to overshadow Ceylon in the late 20th century were already apparent. The cities and towns were fairly modern, with a well-educated population, many of whom spoke En - glish fl uently and were politically aware. Employment was easy for the middle class and the well connected. However, on the plantations large numbers of Tamil laborers lived in very basic conditions, often in hostels for men—without their families—and with family ties back on the Indian mainland. Outside the urban areas and the plantations, the villages remained isolated from much of the economic life of the island, and people still survived by subsistence agriculture. Gradually roads, and in some cases railways, reduced this isolation. Further reading: Arasaratnam, S. Ceylon and the Dutch, 1600–1800: external infl uences and internal change in early modern Sri Lanka. Brookfi eld, VT: Variorum, 1996; ———. Dutch Power in Ceylon. New Delhi: South Asia Books, 1988; Forrest, D. M. A hundred years of Ceylon Tea 1867–1967. London: Chatto & Windus, 1967; Gooneratne, Brendon and Yasmine. This Inscrutable Englishman: Sir John D’Oyly 1774–1824. London: Cassell, 1999. Justin Corfi eld Chakri dynasty and King Rama I The Chakri dynasty was established on April 6, 1782, when Chao Phaya Chakri was crowned the king of Thailand (formerly Siam) as Rama I. The rulers belonging to the house of Chakri have been kings of Thailand Bringing tea to market in Ceylon. Ceylon, now called Sri Lanka, was an important possession for the British. The island had strategic signifi cance in its location near India and produced tea, cinnamon, pepper, and other valuable cash crops. 84 Chakri dynasty and King Rama I ever since. The illustrious rulers of this dynasty took the country out of troubled times during the colonial period. Their vision and leadership also modernized Thailand. Rama I was born on March 20, 1737, to a noble of the Ayudhya kingdom, Phra Aksorn Sundara Smiantra. After fi nishing his education in Buddhist temples, he served in the royal household of the Ayudya kings before joining the army. Phya Thaksin, Rama I’s predecessor, had liberated Thailand after the Burmese devastation of Ayudhya in 1767. Rama I was in his service, participating in almost every battle fought by the king and was made governor of Ratchaburi Province. He was awarded the title Somdetch Chao Phraya Maha Kashatriya Suk (roughly equivalent to a duke) by Thaksin. The Burmese attack had been repelled, and Cambodia and Luang Prabang were under Thai authority. The task of subjugating Vientiane was entrusted to Rama I, then an army general. He successfully completed his mission in 1778. The famous Emerald Buddha, in Vientiane’s possession since 1564, was brought to the capital, Thonburi. The hostility of Buddhist monks against Thaksin’s demand of obeisance led to his downfall and imprisonment. Once again, it seemed that the newly established peace and order of the kingdom would collapse in a civil war. Rama I rose to the occasion. He returned from Cambodia, where he was stationed for a military campaign, and assumed the royal title after restoring order. Rama I shifted the capital from Thonburi to a site opposite on the bank of the river Chao Phraya. He planned the layout for a new city of Bangkok. It has remained the capital of Thailand ever since. On the eastern side of the river, he implemented a strong defense with double-lined fortifi cation. Thonburi had been on both banks of the river to protect against Burmese attack. Rama I did not have any plan to make an escape and concentrated on checking any future attack on the capital. A large Chinese community lived on the eastern side, so they were transferred a short distance downstream to Sampheng. It is now a famous Chinese shopping area. Within three years, the Grand Palace was constructed, and it still stands today. In keeping with earlier Thai monarchs, Rama I retained connections with Indic-style Sanskritized epithets that resulted in descriptions of the new city such as Impregnable City of God Indra, Grand Capital of the World, and City given by Indra and Built by Vishnukarma. The Emerald Buddha was installed in Wat Phra Kaew. The reign of Rama I witnessed consolidation and expansion of the kingdom by extensive warfare. The Burmese attacks of King Bodawpaya were successfully defeated in 1785 and 1787. The kingdom of Vientiane of Laos acknowledged the vassalage of Thailand. Chieng Mai and Chieng Saen were once again under Thailand’s authority. Chao In of Luang Prabang remained as a vassal of Rama I. Thus Thai control extended into Laos. In 1795 Rama I installed Anh Eng as ruler of Cambodia after annexing the provinces of Battambng, Siemreap, and portions of Korat. When the powerful Gia Long unifi ed Vietnam, Cambodia had to acknowledge suzerainty of both Thailand and Vietnam. The sultans of Kedah, Kelantan, and Trenggannu acknowledged the suzerainty of the Thai monarch until the British took over the sultanates in 1909. Rama I revamped administration in the provinces as well as the capital, making his rule very centralized. The incessant Burmese invasions of the 18th century had made both the Thai bureaucracy and monkhood corrupt and lax. Between 1784 and 1801 Rama I restored the moral standard of the Buddhist monks by a series of royal decrees. The Buddhist scripture, the Tripitaka (three baskets), and Thai civil law had been destroyed at the time of the Burmese sack of the earlier capital Ayudhya. Rama I called a Buddhist council in 1788, in which 250 monks and Buddhist scholars participated, to reconstruct the Tripitaka. The Thai king was the defender of Theravada Buddhism and the pillar of Thai governance and society, and Rama I performed his obligation to the fullest extent. Rama I also appointed a supreme patriarch of Thai Buddhism. Further, he appointed a commission in 1795 consisting of 11 jurists and scholars to look into the laws promulgated by Rama Tibodi I (founder of Ayudhya dynasty), who reigned in the 14th century. The code of laws comprising indigenous practices and Indian legal concepts was somewhat altered. The new code of 1804, known as Laws of the Three Seals, categorized the 48 provinces of the kingdom, each with a governor, most of whom were members of the royalty and served threeyear terms. The code also enumerated provisions for civil and military administration. According to Thai sources, Rama I was a benevolent ruler who looked after the needs of his subjects, these codes being a primary example of his benevolence. There was a fl ourishing of Thai literature and translations under Rama I. He had initiated the royal writings known as Phra Rajanibondh, and he wrote the Thai version of the Indian epic, the Ramayana, which depicted the feats of a hero named Rama. Chakri dynasty and King Rama I 85 Rama I died on September 7, 1809, in Bangkok and was succeeded by his son, Prince Isarasundorn, as King Rama II. He left a legacy in Thai history as a patron of literature, a lawmaker, and a builder of empire. See also Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third; Rama v. Further reading: Cady, John F. Thailand, Burma, Laos, & Cambodia. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966; Hall, D. G. E. A History of South-East Asia. New York: St. Martins Press, 1968; Tarling, Nicholas, ed., The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Wenk, Klaus. The Restoration of Thailand under Rama I. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1968; Wyatt, David K. Thailand: A Short History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Patit Paban Mishra Chicago Fire (1871) The fast-moving blaze that consumed more than three square miles of Chicago, Illinois, causing the Chicago River to boil, killing at least 300, and leaving 90,000 homeless, would, within two decades, produce a reinvented city more prosperous and beautiful than had seemed possible when the fi re burned itself out after 36 hours. In the process of renewal, the Great Fire tested the ability of politicians, magnates, and ordinary city dwellers to deal effectively with the human causes and outcomes of natural disaster. Chicago, 37 years old in the tinder-dry summer of 1871, was a fast-growing, 35-square-mile city of 300,000. Located at the confl uence of Lake Michigan, major canals, and a growing railroad network, the city was a place of fevered speculation and rapid growth that produced showy mansions abutting the A Currier & Ives print of the Great Chicago Fire on Sunday, October 8, 1871. The fi re panicked citizens and caused widespread damage but produced a reinvented, modern city in its wake. 86 Chicago Fire (1871) mostly wooden shacks of an expanding poor and immigrant population. It was in one such southwest neighborhood that the fi re of Sunday, October 8, was ignited, possibly, although not conclusively, by a lamp overturned in a De Koven Street barn by a cow owned by Mrs. O’Leary, an Irish immigrant. Just a day earlier, a fi re in an industrial district had been contained, but only after $1 million in damage. Already exhausted, fi re fi ghters were unable to quell the new blaze, despite some success by men under the direction of Civil War veteran general Philip Sheridan who used gunpowder to curb the fi re’s southerly spread. Major enterprises, including a fl our mill, the city’s water supply system, rail yards, the McCormick Reaper Works, and even the “fi re-proof” headquarters of the Chicago Tribune, were destroyed. Overall losses would be estimated at $196 million. Amid acres of twisted rubble, rebuilding began almost before the coals had cooled. Fire debris was used as landfi ll to expand the city along the lake and river. Shorn of buildings, some parts of Chicago, including its famous loop, became targets of investment and speculation. The importance of the city as an agricultural depot and manufacturing and transportation center assured that fi nanciers from Wall Street and elsewhere would lend ample money for rebuilding. The initial recovery proceeded with great speed, making Chicagoans feel better about their ruined city, but it produced mostly shoddy structures that ignored lessons about the need for planning and fi re resistance administered by the Great Fire. A nationwide fi nancial panic of 1873 brought much of Chicago’s building frenzy to a halt. In 1874 the so-called “Little Chicago Fire” infl icted millions in new damage to the city. By the time business conditions improved, a new generation of architects, including Daniel Burnham, John Wellborn Root, and Louis Sullivan, had emerged, along with such newly available technologies as structural steel and elevators. The result would be an innovative new architecture that made Chicago a national and international leader in the fi eld. By 1893 the Columbian Exposition, a hugely successful world’s fair, would showcase a reborn Chicago and highlight the city’s triumph over both natural and human disaster. See also newspapers, North American. Further reading: Miller, Ross. “Out of the Blue: The Great Chicago Fire of 1871.” In Out of Ground Zero: Case Studies in Urban Reinvention, edited by Joan Ockman. New York: Prestel, 2002; Pierce, Bessie L. A History of Chicago. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1940. Marsha E. Ackermann China, spheres of infl uence in China’s military and economic weakness and heightened Western imperialism worldwide during the 1890s resulted in the division of China into Western spheres of infl uence that threatened its eventual partition. The downward spiral began with the Sino-Japanese War, caused by Japan’s quest to control Korea, a Chinese vassal state. China’s resounding defeat was refl ected in the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), whereby it gave up protectorship over Korea, ceded Taiwan and the Liaodong (Liaotung) Peninsula to Japan, and paid a huge indemnity. Fearing that Japanese control of the Liaodong Peninsula would give it undue infl uence over the Chinese capital at nearby Beijing (Peking), Germany, France, and Russia sent identical notes to Japan in April 1898 that forced Japan to return Liaodong to China in exchange for a larger indemnity. This action was called the Far Eastern Triplice, and, for helping China, the three powers obtained several economic concessions. Germany began the move to divide China into spheres of infl uence in 1898 with a number of demands: that the Chinese government lease Jiaozhou (Kiaochow) on the Shandong (Shantung) coast to Germany as a naval base for 99 years; grant Germany the right to build railways, including one to link Jiaozhou with Jinan (Chinan), capital of Shandong province; grant German banks and companies exclusive rights to loan money for development projects in Shandong; and other concessions. China bowed to Germany’s demands and other imperialist nations followed Germany’s lead. Russia added to its existing privileges in northeastern China. They included building the Chinese Eastern and South Manchurian Railways, branch lines of the Trans- Siberian Railway across Manchuria to Port Arthur and Dairen (which it leased from China for 25 years) on the Gulf of Peichili, and extensive economic rights in Manchuria. Great Britain followed by leasing Weihaiwei (near Jiaochou) as a naval base for 25 years and the Kowloon New Territory for 99 years. It also secured China’s promise to protect the Yangzi (Yangtze) River Valley, which became a British sphere of infl uence. France leased Guangzhouwan (Kwangchow-wan) for China, spheres of influence in 87 99 years and acquired a sphere of infl uence in Guangdong (Kwangtung), Guangxi (Kwangsi), and Yunnan, three provinces that adjoined French Indochina. Japan exacted a promise that China would not adjoin Fujian (Fukien) province to any other power. Only Italy was rebuffed when it asked China for a sphere of infl uence in Zhejiang (Chekiang) Province. In the phrase current in 1898, China was being cut up like a melon. It seemed on the verge of partition among the imperialist powers. Domestically, the perilous state precipitated a reform movement. Among the great powers, only the United States did not acquire a sphere of infl uence and attempted to reverse the course of events by the declaration of an Open Door policy. See also Hundred Days of Reform. Further reading: Schrecker, John E. Imperialism and Nationalism: Germany in Shantung. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964; Twitchett, Denis, and John K. Fairbank, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 11, Part 2, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980; Young, L. K. British Policy in China,1895–1902. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Chinese Exclusion Act In 1882, in response to the vociferous insistence of California’s anti- “coolie” clubs and Irish immigrant Denis Kearney’s Workingmen’s Party of California, Congress passed the fi rst law in U.S. history to ban explicitly the further immigration of a particular racial or ethnic group. Known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the law refl ected the growing ethnic and racial diversity of the century-old republic; the importance of racial identities in shaping local, state, and national politics; and the enduring legacy of racism in the wake of nearly 250 years of African slavery. Chinese immigration to California turned from a trickle to a fl ood following the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in 1848. The ensuing gold rush, which drew prospectors from across the country, caused California’s population to skyrocket, from 14,000 in 1848 to more than 220,000 four years later. The vast majority of California’s new immigrants were men and included not only a diversity of Euro-Americans, many recent U.S. arrivals, but also Mexicans, African Americans, and Chinese. At fi rst California’s Caucasian population tended to look favorably on Chinese immigrants as diligent, thrifty, and hardworking. Overwhelmingly male, most Chinese immigrants were brought by labor contractors to work in the burgeoning railroad, construction, prospecting, and related industries. By the 1870s, however, Euro-American anti-Chinese sentiment hardened, as Chinese women and children began arriving in large numbers and as competition for scarce resources combined with political opportunism and other factors to spark the formation of anti-coolie clubs in the state’s largest cities and towns. Violence against Chinese immigrants intensifi ed, including lynchings, burnings, and rapes, while boycotts of Chinese- made goods became widespread. 88 Chinese Exclusion Act The cover of Harper’s Weekly on February 3, 1877, depicts Chinese immigrants at the San Francisco Customs House. In 1875, at the prompting of California congressman Horace Page, Congress passed a law barring the further immigration of Chinese women, ostensibly to protect the health of white men threatened by Chinese prostitutes. The clamor among whites for the exclusion of all Chinese immigrants mounted, spearheaded by Kearney’s Workingmen’s Party. By the early 1880s some 100,000 persons of Chinese ancestry lived in the United States, the vast majority on the West Coast. Many prominent white citizens supported Kearney’s call for Chinese exclusion, including leading labor rights activist Henry George, who deemed the Chinese to be “unassimilable.” Congress fi nally responded with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which banned all Chinese immigration for 10 years while prohibiting persons of Chinese origin already in the country from becoming naturalized citizens. Ten years later, in 1892, Congress renewed the ban, and in 1902 made the exclusion permanent. To America’s Chinese-descended population, the Exclusion Acts encapsulated the bitter realities of racial discrimination in their adopted homeland. Offi cially stigmatized as second-class citizens, Chinese Americans would remain toward the bottom of the country’s economic, social, and racial hierarchy well into the 20th century, especially in the Pacifi c Coast region where most resided. Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Acts in 1943 at the height of World War II, in part as a gesture of solidarity with Chinese Nationalist forces under assault by Japan. The 1943 law also permitted Chinese-descended permanent residents to apply for citizenship, though the civil rights of many Chinese Americans did not receive full federal affi rmation until the civil rights laws of the mid-1960s. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; immigration, North America and; railroads in North America. Further reading: Saxton, Alexander. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971; Takaki, Ronald. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Boston: Little, Brown, 1998. Michael J. Schroeder Civil War, American (1861–1865) This most deadly and destructive of any U.S. war was the “irrepressible” outcome of sectional confl icts over land, labor, and political power that emerged in the earliest days of colonial rule and festered for decades in the young republic. When it was over, some 620,000 Americans— Union and Confederate—were dead, as was President Abraham Lincoln, assassinated in a Washington theater fi ve days after the war’s end. The Civil War began in April 1861 when agents of the newly formed Confederate States of America (CSA) fi red on Fort Sumter, a federal facility in South Carolina. By its end at Appomattox Court House in Virginia, almost exactly four years later, this war tested the limits of state and federal power and had become primarily a war about slavery. When the Union prevailed, 4 million people of African descent were declared free. From the early 17th century, the British were enthusiastic traders in and users of kidnapped West and Central African men, women, and children. Most Americans, including non–slave owners, saw this system as a highly desirable way to overcome chronic labor shortages in their colonies. Unlike indentured servants, Africans were easily identifi ed and just as easily denied rights extended to white Englishmen. By the time of the American Revolution, every British colony used slave workers; most were concentrated in the southern agricultural colonies. Even slave owners like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson perceived an obvious confl ict between America’s intensifying rhetoric of freedom and the new nation’s heavy dependence on involuntary labor. During and after the war, many northern states acted to end or phase out slavery. But the 1789 U.S. Constitution, although it never used the word slavery, included major concessions to slave ownership. Most signifi cant was language allowing each state to add to its census count a number representing three-fi fths of all slaves held in that state. As slavery waned in the North, and waxed in the South, this had the effect of signifi cantly increasing southern political power based on congressional representation. As the new nation doubled in size with the 1803 addition of the Louisiana Purchase, cotton, a laborintensive, hot-climate cash crop in high demand for clothing, was already transforming U.S. agriculture and reinvigorating the slave labor system. Cotton farmers pushed into Alabama and Mississippi, Louisiana, and the Mexican province of Texas, bringing with them thousands of slaves uprooted from eastern states, and buying additional Africans ahead of the Constitution’s 1808 deadline. More Americans began to question the utility and morality of slavery, and a few, like Boston abolitionist Civil War, American 89 publisher William Lloyd Garrison, even demanded equal rights for African Americans. But the central issue eventually leading to war was how to deal politically with the expansion of slavery in an expanding nation. After two years of wrangling, Congress in 1820 crafted the Missouri Compromise. Meant to preserve the political balance between slave and free states, the compromise revealed a tense struggle. “Like a fi re bell in the night,” wrote the elderly Jefferson, the compromise portended the death “knell of the union.” For a time, the compromise seemed to work, but by the 1840s new land pressures sparked by a growing population and the Manifest Destiny ideology renewed controversy over slavery’s expansion. President James K. Polk, a slave-owning Tennessee Democrat, recognized Texas statehood, negotiated with Britain for the Oregon Territory, and instigated a Mexican War, bringing into the nation vast new areas, many coveted by slave owners. CURBING SLAVERY’S SPREAD In 1846 Pennsylvania congressman David Wilmot, a Democrat disturbed by Polk’s southern bias, proposed that none of America’s potential Mexican acquisitions could be opened to slavery. Passed by the House, Wilmot’s Proviso died in the Senate. Democrats and Whigs abandoned party positions in favor of regional loyalties, portending the shredding of party politics in the decade to come. In 1848 a new Free-Soil Party ran a national campaign dedicated to curbing slavery’s spread while expanding land availability for white families. The Compromise of 1850, hammered out by veteran congressional leaders, only set the stage for greater confl ict. This complex measure repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed gold-rich California to enter the United States as a free state. Slave trading (but not slavery) was outlawed in the District of Columbia. Federal marshals were empowered to seize fugitive slaves anywhere in the United States. In Boston and other abolitionist strongholds, armed confl icts erupted when marshals tried to arrest blacks accused of running away. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s best-selling Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped explain and dramatize these confl icts. In 1854 the idea of popular sovereignty, supposedly a fairer way to decide between slave and free soil, exploded as settlers and thugs from both sides staked claims and grabbed political power in the Kansas- Nebraska territories. While Missouri “border ruffi - ans” rampaged on behalf of slavery, abolitionist John Brown randomly massacred fi ve pro-slavery settlers. The rising tide of sectional violence spilled onto the fl oor of the U.S. Senate in 1856 when a South Carolina House member caned Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner so severely that he was incapacitated for several years. The Whig Party was an early casualty of sectional confl ict, fi elding its last national candidates in 1852. Although the Democratic Party maintained much of its traditional southern base, there was really no place for those trying to maintain national political cohesion. As nationalism failed, many disaffected northern and midwestern voters— “conscience” Whigs, freesoilers, temperance crusaders, anti-immigrant “Know- Nothings”—became constituents of a new sectional party: the Republicans. Republicans did well in the 1856 election and gained traction in 1857 when a southern-dominated U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court ruled that Scott, a slave until the last year of his life, was entitled neither to citizenship nor freedom. Additionally, chief justice Roger B. Taney cast doubt on Congress’s power to regulate slavery anywhere at all. With reasoned political dialogue vanishing, John Brown’s 1859 effort to spark a slave uprising by seizing weapons from a federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, brought tension to an even higher pitch. Brown and his followers were swiftly executed but 90 Civil War, American A Currier & Ives lithograph of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, published between 1860 and 1870 some transcendentalists, including Henry David Thoreau, hailed Brown as a martyred hero, prompting southern Fire Eaters to argue that further intersectional discussion was useless. ELEVEN STATES Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, a former Whig who had supported the Wilmot Proviso, gained national attention for a series of debates with his state’s sitting senator, Stephen Douglas, in 1858. Two years later, he was the Republican Party’s presidential choice. In a four-way race, Lincoln was elected with 40 percent of the popular vote. Anticipating this fi rst Republican president, seven Southern states, led by South Carolina, voted to leave the United States and form an independent nation on the North American continent. They chose Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, former senator and U.S. war secretary, as president. After Fort Sumter, the CSA was joined by four more states, most signifi cantly Virginia, the South’s most industrialized state and home of esteemed general Robert E. Lee. The Civil War has been called the fi rst modern war due largely to its bloody ferocity that did not spare civilians. It was a war made possible by new technologies, including ironclad ships and more powerful and reliable guns and mortars. It was among the fi rst wars extensively documented by photographers, most famously Mathew Brady. Although neither side was really prepared for confl ict, the Union held an enormous edge in manpower, rail trackage, and industrial capacity. Yet, in early battles, the Confederacy shocked Union troops in the East, thwarting attempts to take Richmond, the CSA’s capital, in the battles of Bull Run/Manassas, the Seven Days’ Campaign, and Second Battle of Bull Run. Not until September 1862’s Battle of Antietam in Maryland was Union general George B. McClellan, a brilliant but vain and indecisive leader, able to claim victory over troops led by General Lee. Antietam was the bloodiest battle in American history. In one day (September 17) 4,300 men died outright while 2,000 died later of their wounds. In the West, the Union also had successes Civil War, American 91 The bloodiest and deadliest war in U.S. history, the Civil War started for various reasons, many based around issues of states’ rights. By the end of the war, the confl ict centered around the debate of slavery. Above, offi cers of the third U.S. Infantry in Washington, D.C. as Ulysses S. Grant, soon to become head of the Union armies, captured forts in Tennessee, while Admiral David G. Farragut seized the vital port of New Orleans. Success at Antietam helped solve major issues facing President Lincoln. Confederate envoys in Europe had been working hard to gain diplomatic recognition. They emphasized to British and French leaders the importance of cotton to the European textile industry. A temporary textiles glut, European distaste for slavery, and the Union’s own diplomacy and recent military success helped derail the possibility of CSA nationhood aided by foreign powers. In Antietam’s wake, Lincoln also fi nally felt empowered to add an end to slavery to his original war aim of preserving the Union. Since the war’s outset, slaves had fl ocked to Union lines, while black leaders like Frederick Douglass urged Lincoln to allow blacks to join in a battle for their freedom. Yet Lincoln still maintained that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed, if only the Confederacy gave up its reckless secession. Strengthened by Antietam, Lincoln gave the CSA until January 1, 1863, to surrender or face slavery’s abolition in rebellious states. The Emancipation Proclamation did little to free any slaves and provoked the political backlash Lincoln had feared. But it did signal the beginning of the end of slavery and inspired more than 200,000 black men to fi ght for the Union. Still, the war raged. It began with great enthusiasm as young men on both sides fl ocked to state militias. As bloodshed escalated, both sides had trouble mustering fresh recruits. In April 1862 the CSA instituted the fi rst military draft in U.S. history; a Union conscription law was implemented the following March. Both had loopholes mainly allowing wealthy men to avoid service; both were highly unpopular. The most extreme example of draft resistance occurred in New York City in the summer of 1863. Led by Irish immigrants, hundreds of protesters expressed their fury by vandalizing the homes and businesses of rich Republicans and assaulting free black citizens of New York. More than 100 died. Troops from the justconcluded Battle of Gettysburg were called in to quell the violence. Gettysburg was one of several key battles in 1863 that favored the Union. The Confederacy suffered a grievous loss at Chancellorsville, Virginia, when General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was killed by friendly fi re. In July General Grant’s troops seized Vicksburg, gaining control of the Mississippi Valley. Almost simultaneously, General George Meade’s Union troops repelled Lee’s deepest incursion into Union territory at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Despite these indications of eventual Union success, there was no quick end. In 1862 Clement L. Vallandigham, a former Ohio Congressman, spearheaded a “peace without victory” movement that called for a negotiated reconciliation with the Confederacy and denounced abolition. These Peace Democrats, called Copperheads by Republican opponents, posed serious political problems for Lincoln, as he faced a strong reelection challenge in 1864 from his fi red general, George McClellan. Union victories in the battles of The Wilderness and Spotsylvania caused huge death tolls on both sides, but were crushing blows to the smaller, poorly equipped Confederate army. Meanwhile, General William T. Sherman in September captured Atlanta and commenced his March to the Sea that destroyed farms, homes, railroads, and lives across a 60-mile-wide swath of Georgia and South Carolina. These timely successes helped assure Lincoln’s reelection. On January 31, 1865, Congress approved the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a fi rst step in the permanent abolition of slavery. By April 3 Grant’s soldiers occupied Richmond; the next day President Lincoln, accompanied only by a few Union sailors, visited the conquered Confederate capital. In the wake of Lee’s surrender and Lincoln’s assassination at the hands of nationally famous actor John Wilkes Booth, a new United States emerged. The North had used the war years to consolidate its economy and create national programs, including western homesteads, agricultural colleges, and a transcontinental railroad. The decimated South began to rebuild, although it would lag socially and economically for decades. No serious secession movement ever again challenged federal authority. The end of slavery was a joyous event, but it would take generations for either the former Confederacy or former Union to seriously pursue justice for their African-American citizens. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Beecher family; political parties in the United States; railroads in North America; Reconstruction, united states and the; slave trade in Africa. Further reading: McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; Oates, Stephen B. With Malice Towards None. New York: Harper & Row, 1977; Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis 1848–1861. New York: Harper & Row, 1976; Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation, 1861–1865. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Marsha E. Ackermann 92 Civil War, American Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) (1835–1908) Chinese ruler Yehe Nara (or Yehenala) was the daughter of a minor Manchu offi cial. She entered the harem of Emperor Xianfeng (Hsien-feng) in 1851 and became a highranking consort upon the birth of a son, his only male heir, in 1856. An incompetent ruler, Xianfeng’s disastrous foreign policy led to war against Great Britain and France that culminated in the Anglo-French occupation of China’s capital, Beijing (Peking). Xianfeng, Yehe Nara, their son, and some followers fl ed to their summer palace in Rehe (Jehol), north of the Great Wall. Xianfeng died there in 1861 and was succeeded by his fi ve-year old son who reigned as Emperor Tongzhi (T’ung-chih). Xianfeng’s will created a board of regents for his son. However, they were quickly overthrown by a coalition of his empress, Yehe Nara, and his brother Prince Gong (K’ung), who had been left in charge in Beijing and had negotiated treaties ending the war with Britain and France. Xianfeng’s empress became the dowager empress Ci’an (Tz’u-an) and Yehe Nara became the dowager empress Cixi (also called the Eastern and Western Empresses, respectively, after the location of their residences in the Imperial City). Contrary to dynastic law that forbade regencies under dowager empresses, they became coregents, assisted by Prince Gong, who was given the additional title of prince counselor. Although senior in status, Ci’an was retiring by nature and was dominated by Cixi, who was both ambitious and ruthless; she also exploited her position as the natural mother of the boy emperor. Initially, she cooperated with Prince Gong, using him to run China’s foreign affairs and going along with his programs in cooperation with other modernizing offi cials. They introduced policies and programs that strengthened China and raised armies that defeated the major rebellions (Taiping, Nian, and Muslim Rebellions) that had threatened the very survival of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty. Thus the era of the boy emperor’s reign was called the Tongzhi Restoration. As Cixi gained experience she shed anyone who could threaten her power. From 1865 she repeatedly “chastised” Prince Gong, until he was completely sidelined, replacing him with incompetent and totally compliant Manchu princes. For example, she put a minion, Prince Yihuan (I-huan), in charge of building a modern navy, then diverted funds intended for the navy to build a lavish new summer palace, with calamitous results for China when Japan attacked in 1894. She refused to give up actual power when her son reached majority in 1872 and encouraged him to indulge in excesses as distraction. She also disapproved of his choice of an empress and did her best to separate the two. He died in 1874 under mysterious circumstances, followed by the suicide of his pregnant empress so that her unborn child, if a male, would not succeed to the throne. In violation of dynastic law, Cixi then adopted a nephew (son of her husband’s brother and her sister), threeyear- old Zaitian (Tsai-t’ien), as the new emperor. His youth ensured another long regency for Cixi. When the Eastern Dowager died mysteriously in 1881 after only a day’s illness, Cixi’s power was supreme. Cixi and her court were corrupt to the core. Offi - cials were required to pay her for audiences, promotions, and her birthdays and were cashiered if they objected. She allowed her favorite eunuchs and maids to sell offi ces. One favorite eunuch, Li Lianying (Li Lienying), her hairdresser, died a multimillionaire. She tried to terrorize Guangxu (Kuang-hsu) into becoming a cipher, but though terrifi ed of her and forced to marry her niece to enmesh him further under her control, he grew up to be an intelligent and studious man, convinced that deep reforms were necessary to save China. The confrontation occurred in 1898 when Guangxu launched the Hundred Days of Reform. In a showdown, Cixi’s reactionary supporters, who feared loss of power, and an opportunistic general, Yuan Shikai (Yuan Shih-k’ai), who betrayed the emperor, allowed Cixi to launch a successful coup that imprisoned Guangxu. Six leading reformers were executed, others fl ed abroad; all reforms were rescinded. She installed a reactionary prince as heir, preliminary to dethroning Guangxu, but was foiled by opposition from provincial governors and Western powers. CLIMAX OF REACTION In 1899 a xenophobic secret society popularly called Boxers began a rampage in northern China, killing Westerners and Chinese Christians. Cixi and her ignorant supporters believed in Boxer claims of magic. She ordered all Westerners in China killed, Chinese diplomats to return home, declared war on the entire Western world, and cut telegraph lines so that her deeds would not be reported abroad. Fortunately for China, its diplomats abroad and governors in the central and southern provinces refused to obey her orders and declared the Boxers rebels. The Boxer reign of terror in Beijing ended when soldiers from Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) 93 eight Western powers captured the city. Cixi fl ed the capital with Guangxu in tow, refusing to let him stay behind to negotiate with the Western powers due to fear that he might assume power. She returned to Beijing in 1902, blaming Guangxu for the Boxer fi asco. Cixi attempted to salvage her fortunes and those of the dynasty after 1902 by belatedly professing interest in change, sent a delegation to Western countries to study reform, and promised gradual political changes. She appointed a three-year-old grandnephew heir to the childless Guangxu before she died on November 15, 1908, after it was announced that he had suddenly died on the previous day. The Qing dynasty would last three more years. See also Aigun and Beijing, Treaties of. Further reading: Hummel, Arthur, ed., Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, Vol. I. Washington: United States Printing Offi ce, 1944; Laidler, Keith. The Last Empress, The She-Dragon of China. London: John Wiley and Sons, 2003; Warner, Marina. The Dragon Empress: The Life and Times of Tz’u-hsi, Empress Dowager of China, 1835–1908. New York: Atheneum, 1972. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur coffee revolution In the second half of the 19th century, what is often referred to as a “coffee revolution” swept large parts of Latin America, especially southern Brazil, northern South America (Colombia and Venezuela), and Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua). The consequences of this revolution were profound, transforming land-use patterns and relations of production and exchange within individual nation-states, especially through the privatization of collectively held lands (owned either by Indian communities, the church, or the state); providing a sound fi scal base for emergent states, and thus permitting the robust growth and modernization of state administrations and bureaucracies integral to Latin America’s liberal revolution during this same period; and integrating Latin American economies more tightly within the developing global capitalist system, particularly the nexuses connecting Latin America with Europe and North America. Coffee is among what historian Sidney Mintz called the “drug foods” of the Americas and other tropical zones; these foods also include tea, chocolate, tobacco, rum, and sugar. Three of these tropical export products— coffee, tea, and chocolate—are bitter and were generally consumed as drinks, facilitating their consumption along with sweetening substances like sugar and molasses. In a widely accepted argument, Mintz maintains that the consumption of these drug foods by urban wage earners was part and parcel of the growth of urban working classes in Europe and North America during the Industrial Revolution in the second half of the 19th century. In France, for instance, coffee consumption increased fi vefold from 1850 to 1900 (from 50 to 250 million pounds annually); Germany saw a fourfold increase during this same period (from 100 to 400 million pounds annually); the fi gures for other European nations were comparable. This was also an era in which African slavery was on the decline, wage labor and European migration to Latin America on the rise, and liberal reformers in Latin America’s newly independent nation-states were actively seeking greater foreign investment, free trade, and secure sources of tax revenue. All of these factors and more came together to generate Latin America’s coffee revolution. Of African origin, coffee was cultivated in the Americas from the early 1600s, usually on lands unsuitable for sugar and tobacco, the principal export crops. European consumption of coffee rose dramatically from the 1650s, especially in urban coffeehouses, which in turn prompted increased coffee production in the Americas, usually by slave labor. But it was not until the 1820s and 1830s, with the explosive growth of urban working classes in Europe and North America, and the ending of Latin America’s colonial status, that the industrializing world’s explosive demand for coffee prompted renewed Latin American attention to this traditionally secondary (or tertiary) export commodity. Large-scale coffee production required not only fertile, well-watered, well-drained soils, but substantial long-term capital investment and an ample supply of labor. Land fi rst needed to be cleared and coffee seedlings planted. Coffee trees generally take three to six years from planting to fi rst years of fruit production, requiring during this period careful tending and weeding. Coffee trees also tend to deplete soils of nutrients; thus, without application of fertilizers, production declines and new lands are needed. Also, unlike sugar, which generally requires large plantations to exploit economies of scale, coffee carries no such requirements and can be grown and marketed profi tably on large plantations as well as on small farms utilizing primarily family labor. 94 coffee revolution The history of coffee in Brazil, Latin America’s largest coffee producer, illustrates these patterns. Before the 1830s, Brazil had undergone a series of export booms: brazilwood, sugar, tobacco, gold, and diamonds. In the 1830s coffee production surged, and by the 1840s coffee became the country’s leading export product—a position it held for the next 130 years. In the 1840s coffee made up more than 40 percent of total exports; by the 1890s nearly 65 percent; and by the 1920s nearly 70 percent. The region around Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo in the south became the center of the coffee revolution, with the city of Rio de Janeiro emerging as the country’s leading fi nancial and commercial center and principal port city. The city’s fi nancial and transport infrastructure of banks, brokerage houses, and port facilities modernized rapidly. The decline of sugar production in the northeast and growth of coffee production in the south combined with the decline of the transatlantic slave trade to generate a brisk internal trade in slaves and a shift in the country’s demographic, economic, and political center of gravity southward to the coffee zones. By the late 1840s competition for lands suitable for coffee production intensifi ed, prompting the national government to issue a new land law in 1850 that in effect favored large producers and made land acquisition much more diffi cult for smallholders. During this same period, large coffee growers sought to promote European immigration, both to “whiten” the country’s population and to provide an adequate labor supply for their expanding plantations. The scheme faltered, however, as European immigrants balked at the slavery-like labor conditions and the lack of economic opportunities— a failure that in turn buttressed large planters’ commitment to slave labor. The fi nal abolition of slavery in Brazil in 1888 prompted not only the fall of the empire by military coup and the formation of a republican government in 1889, but a surge in European immigration, much of it related to coffee production. By 1900 more than twothirds of the world’s coffee was produced in Brazil. Coffee remained the mainstay of the export economy until after 1945, but even as late as 1970 coffee revenues made up more than one-third of Brazil’s export sector. The precise nature of Latin America’s coffee revolution unfolded differently in different countries and regions, varying widely according to local traditions, preexisting landholding patterns, and power relations between large landholders and smallholders, and many other factors. Overall, coffee production and commerce tended to favor large producers over small, but this gross generalization masks important national, regional, and local variations. Costa Rica, for instance, the fi rst Central American nation to undergo a coffee revolution, is often cited as an example of a Latin American nation whose coffee revolution favored smallholders, which in turn fostered the development of democratic institutions. Scholars generally agree that this was indeed the case. Yet even in Costa Rica, different regions experienced the coffee revolution in distinctive ways. The province of Cartago, for instance, saw large coffee farms predominate (59 percent with more than 20,000 trees), while in the country as a whole, most farms were smaller scale (60 percent with fewer than 20,000 trees). Tremendous local and regional differentiation, in short, was the norm, and not just in Costa Rica but across Latin America. The coffee revolution’s timing also varied greatly. Venezuela, like Costa Rica and Brazil, saw surges in coffee production in the 1830s and 1840s; by 1900 Venezuela was Latin America’s second-largest coffee producer after Brazil. The approximate sequence in Central America was Costa Rica (1830s–40s), Guatemala (1860s–70s), El Salvador (1870s–80s), and Nicaragua (1880s–90s). Honduran coffee production remained limited through the 19th and early 20th centuries, reaching Costa Rica’s 1860s production levels only in 1949. Colombia’s coffee production boomed in the late 1870s and 1880s (reaching around 14.3 million pounds in 1880), and again in the 1910s and 1920s (approximately 309 million pounds in 1921). Colombia also developed a coffee economy more akin to Costa Rica’s than Brazil’s, in which small, family-owned and -operated farms tended to predominate—again, with signifi cant regional variations, with smaller farms predominating on the coffee frontier region of the central cordillera and larger production units in zones with greater abundance of labor and capital, such as southwestern Cundinamarca Department. Everywhere, the coffee revolution introduced a host of changes generally associated with Latin America’s liberal revolution: the privatization of lands formerly unclaimed or owned collectively; the formation of more modern structures of state administration and bureaucracy; the increasing importance of wage labor; the modernization of transport and communications infrastructure to facilitate production for export; state and elite-led promotion of free trade, foreign investment, and European immigration; greater vulnerability to the boom-and-bust cycles of the world market; and coffee revolution 95 tighter integration into the structures of global capitalism. The specifi cs of these transformations in various national and subnational contexts comprise the subject of a voluminous literature. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Latin America, export economies in; slave trade in Africa. Further reading: Bergquist, Charles. Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986; Mintz, Sidney W. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Viking, 1985; Stein, Stanley J. Vassouras: A Brazilian Coffee County, 1850–1900: The Roles of Planter and Slave in a Plantation Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985; Williams, Robert G. States and Social Evolution: Coffee and the Rise of National Governments in Central America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994. Michael J. Schroeder Colombia, War of the Thousand Days in (1899–1902) The War of the Thousand Days in Colombia lasted from October 1899, when the Liberals staged a revolt to unseat the Conservative government, to November 1902. It is estimated that 100,000 people died during the war, which left Colombia and Panama (then a part of Colombia) devastated. It also led to the secession of Panama. There had been much instability in 19th-century Colombia with the 1863 constitution suppressed in 1886 and a new constitution established. This failed to end the period of confrontation between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the latter managing to manipulate the electoral system to remain in power. With President Manuel Antonio Sanclemente being too ill to administer the country, there was a power vacuum which Liberal generals hoped to exploit. The Liberal generals planned a coup d’état for October 20, 1899, but the date was brought forward to October 17 at the last moment. Instead of being a relatively straightforward confl ict, many Liberals were hesitant about becoming involved in the war, some for fear of the consequences of failure, others because they were unsure whether they wanted a civil war. The outbreak of the rebellion was in Socorro, Santander, with rebels who had trained in Venezuela ready to come over the border. The Conservative government immediately sent their loyal commanders to Bucaramanga, the capital of Santander, but the soldiers were unhappy about being paid in what they felt was worthless paper money. This stopped the Conservatives from ending the war with a quick victory. However, they did manage to defeat some of the Liberals at the Battle of the Magdalena River on October 24. They were unable to follow up their victory. The Conservatives split into two factions, the “historical” and the “national.” Sanclemente was deposed and replaced with José Manuel Marroquín. At the same time, the Liberals, who also split into two factions, the “pacifi cists” and the “warmongers,” nominated one of their leaders, Gabriel Vargas Santos, as their president, and the scene was set for a civil war. At the Battle of Peralonso, the Liberals led by Rafael Uribe defeated their opponents, but at the Battle of Palonegro, the Conservatives were able to crush the Liberals. The Venezuelans intervened to support the Liberals, but the Conservative Commander Marroquín managed to block them from coming to the aid of their allies. With neither side able to deliver a decisive blow, the fi rst peace agreement was signed at the Neerlandira plantation on October 24, 1902. Fighting continued into the following month in Panama, and fi nally, on November 21, the fi nal peace agreement was signed on the U.S. battleship Wisconsin. This ended the war that had wrecked the economy of the country but had also confi rmed the split in Colombian society that was to lead to Panama being created as an independent republic on November 3, 1903. Further reading: Bushnell, David. The Making of Modern Colombia: A Nation in Spite of Itself. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993; Demarest, G. “War of the Thousand Days,” Small Wars & Insurgencies Vol 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 1–30. Justin Corfi eld comuneros’ revolt The comuneros’ revolt was a rebellion against Spanish colonial authority that took place between March and October 1781 in what is now considered Colombia. This rebellion in the Viceroyalty of New Granada was a response by colonists to changing economic conditions. While some of the conditions were long-standing, many of those that sparked the revolt were a result of the so-called Bourbon reforms. The Spanish government had imposed a series of reforms in their New World colonies in order to more effectively control and profi t from them. 96 Colombia, War of the Thousand Days in (1899–1902) Although the rebellion is sometimes portrayed as a precursor to the independence movement that took place several decades later, its aims were actually rather limited and reformist rather than revolutionary. The rebels called not for an end to Spanish colonial rule but simply a return to the pre-Bourbon reforms situation in which the Spanish government played a lesser role in colonial affairs. The aims of the rebels can be seen in their slogan— “Long live the King, down with the evil government.” The revolt was notable in that it organized a large number of common people. The revolt began on March 16, 1781, in the town of Socorro, an important agricultural and manufacturing center in northern New Granada. A crowd led by Manuela Beltrán tore down the posted edict that announced a sales tax known as the alcabala. This tax was part of a package of fi scal measures imposed by the royal offi - cial Juan Francisco Gutíerrez de Piñeres. The measures also included an extension of government monopolies, especially the tobacco monopoly, that restricted the colonists’ production. These policies led to a rise in the cost of foodstuffs and consumer goods and increased the cost of industry for the colonists. Similar incidents took place in other towns. In Soccoro, colonists elected a común, or central committee, to lead the movement. Furthermore a común represented the idea of a common front of all colonial social groups that challenged the traditional hierarchical society. Members of the elite in Socorro endorsed the movement. Their leader was Juan Francisco Berbeo. The rebels had a number of demands, which included a reduction in tributes and sales taxes, a return of Native American lands, a recall of a new tobacco tax, and the appointment of more Creoles—Spaniards born in the colonies—to colonial government offi ces. Berbeo organized a force of between 10,000 and 20,000 people to march on the capital city of Bogotá. The comuneros defeated a contingent of soldiers sent from the capital. In late May the rebels arrived in the town of Zipaquira, just north of Bogotá. At the time, the viceroy was away in the coastal town of Cartagena. Gutíerrez fl ed. The capital was under the leadership if Archbishop Antonio Caballero y Góngora. On June 5 the two sides agreed to the Capitulations of Zipaquirá, which contained 34 articles dealing with the colonists’s complaints about the fi scal and administrative aspects of the Bourbon reforms. However, Spanish authorities secretly signed a document in which they declared the agreement void due to the fact that it had been obtained by force. Once the rebels retreated and dispersed, Spanish royal offi - cials voided the Capitulations. While Spanish offi cials granted a general amnesty to the rebels, they enforced obedience to royal authority by sending troops to the rebellious region and reinstated many of the unpopular fi scal measures. Most of the rebels accepted these offi cial actions and returned to their daily lives. However, a small core of the comuneros headed by the mestizo peasant leader José Antonio Galán continued the fi ght. In October 1781 Galán was captured. Spanish authorities executed Galán and three of his lieutenants in February 1782. See also Bourbon restoration; Latin America, Bourbon reforms in. Further reading: Keen, Benjamin. A History of Latin America. Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 2004; Lynch, John. The Spanish American Revolutions, 1808–1826. New York: W. W. Norton, 1973; McFarlane, Anthony. Colombia before Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Phelan, John Leddy. The People and the King. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978. Ronald Young Congo Free State In 1870 the Congo basin was unknown to Europeans. It contained 250 ethnic groups, 15 cultural regions mostly speaking Bantu languages, and a diverse climate and terrain, chiefl y savanna and dense rain forest. States were highly organized, with some large kingdoms; agriculture was varied; technology was somewhat developed, particularly metalworking; cloth and artworks were elegant, especially wood carvings, later partly inspiring cubism. Economies fl ourished despite unhealthy lowlands and depredations of East African slaves. In 1877 Henry Morton Stanley completed tracing the 3,000-mile Congo River, emerging at its Atlantic mouth. British disinterest led Stanley to approach Leopold II of Belgium, whose machinations along with Stanley’s creations of stations on the Congo resulted, after the 1884– 85 Congress of Berlin, in the establishment of the Congo Free State with Leopold as the sole owner. It had 22 miles of coastline, about 900,000 square miles of vaguely defi ned interior, and a blue fl ag with a gold star. Initially it exported palm products and ivory, until most of the elephants were killed. It was governed from Brussels; administrators were European volunteers. Indigenes were used for porterage, railroad and road building, harvesting wild Congo Free State 97 rubber, and lumbering. From 1891 on, coercion forced workers to turn all ivory and rubber over to the state. Forced labor requirements were high. They were stabilized at 40 hours per month in 1903, which in practice often meant more than 20 days. Much land was awarded to commercial concessions; the remainder mostly became the property of the Congo state and then to Leopold. As a result, indigenous economies were destroyed. In the late 1890s the Congo became profi table, as world demand for rubber grew. Greed, both Leopold’s (chiefl y to embellish Belgium) and that of commercial concessions, along with demands for wild rubber, quota systems, and forced labor caused abuses and depopulation as well as dwindling amounts of rubber owing to lack of conservation and brutal slashing of vines. Pressure for profi t led to serfdom, lashings, physical mutilations (cutting off of ears or hands), and murder, especially by commercial concessions. Resistance was widespread and often effective; villages fl ed at the sight of a white man. By 1900 criticism of the Congo’s maladministration mounted in both Britain and the United States. Leopold was indifferent to it. Many aspects of the situation in the Congo were not unique, but it and Leopold were easier targets than the Great Powers. The campaign of E. D. Morel in Britain, the investigation and the 1904 report of British consul Roger Casement (which chiefl y condemned the system, not individuals), Morel’s 1904 Congo Reform Association, missionaries, and Leopold’s own 1905 investigative commission confi rmed the atrocities, despite some dubious evidence. Though Leopold resisted, Belgium wrested the Congo Free State from him and reluctantly annexed it in 1908 to end the abuses, which it largely did. Further reading: Ewan, Martin. European Atrocity, African Catastrophe: Leopold II, the Congo Free State, and Its Aftermath. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003; Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 1998. Sally Marks Constitution, U.S. External challenges had motivated previous unsuccessful attempts at creating a union between the 13 English North American colonies. But neither these, nor the First Continental Congress that convened in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, aimed at founding an independent republic. Rather, they were concerned with restoring the rights of the colony in face of British pressure. When the Second Continental Congress met in May 1775, matters had changed radically. A trade war had broken out with the mother country, and colonial militia had clashed with British regulars. The Declaration of Independence followed on July 4, 1776. John Dickinson of Philadelphia submitted the first draft of a constitution. The Continental Congress felt it gave too much power to the central government. Congress adopted the fi nal document, known as the Articles of Confederation, on November 15, 1777. While each state held one vote, Congress was given the power to declare war, negotiate peace, make treaties with foreign nations, decide over interstate disputes, print and borrow money. Further it regulated relations with Native Americans and postal services. For all practical reasons, sovereignty still rested with the states, so did power in all matters not explicitly delegated to the central government. Revision of the Articles required a unanimous vote in Congress; important laws needed approval from at least nine of the 13 states to become effective. In 1780, the confederacy faced bankruptcy, and George Washington’s troops were on the verge of disintegration. The Bank of the United States was chartered in 1781, but the plans of Congress to raise revenue through taxes and tariffs were thwarted by the states. Land sales west of the Appalachians and public loans provided temporary solutions, but the crisis exposed the major intertwined weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation: lack of power to impose taxation and the extensive sovereignty of the states at the expense of Congress. The national debt and war created a nationalist faction in American politics, with Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay demanding a stronger central government. Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts added to the emergency. Merchants in New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania resisted to protect their own state tariffs and protective subsidies. While the planters of Virginia were eager to keep import taxes low, their concern over the war chest added to the ideological inclination toward a strengthening of the federal authority. On the initiative of the Virginia legislature, the Annapolis Convention in 1786 was summoned to discuss federal fi nances, but the issues discussed soon widened in scope. The basic 98 Constitution, U.S. problem was in the provisions of the Articles, and the Congress approved the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, convened on May 15, 1787. Part of the impetus for reform came from Shays’s Rebellion. As the war debt from the Revolution trickled down to individuals, small farmers were often forced to sell their land to pay taxes and were thus unable to continue making a living. The rebellion was put down by a militia raised and organized as a private army. The lack of federal response to the situation created more aggressive calls for reform to the federal government to prevent such situations in the future. The basis for the revision of the Constitution was to be James Madison’s Virginia Plan; Madison, together with Alexander Hamilton, had led the Annapolis Convention, recommending a wider revision of the Constitution. Madison’s political thinking had a big infl uence on the convention. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Fifty-fi ve delegates from 12 states attended the Constitutional Convention; Rhode Island opposed any revision and provided no delegates. Among those present, apart from Madison and Hamilton, were Washington (who served as the president of the convention) and numerous other central fi gures of the Revolution: Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, James Wilson, and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania; Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut; and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina. It fell to the aging Franklin, Madison, John Dickinson, and Roger Sherman to keep the convention together during heated debates. The delegates were mostly merchants and planters, a feature that many historians have seen as favoring a federal government that secured property rights and debtors’ interests. In addition to the provisions given in the Articles of Confederation, the constitutional draft ensured sovereignty of the federal over the state levels, the former were empowered to raise revenue and provided direct citizenship to the United States. The proposals for a central government provided a system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, inspired by French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu. An electorate picked the executive by popular vote, but there were signifi cant disputes over the nature of the legislative branch. Madison’s Virginia plan offered a bicameral solution, where the House of Representatives was elected by popular vote, in which each state had a proportional number of seats. The House would then elect a Senate. Madison’s plan would safeguard the more populous states against irresponsible spending of the smaller ones. The smaller states rallied around the New Jersey Plan providing for a unicameral legislative with equal representation among the states, fearing abuse of power from the larger states. The Great Compromise, proposed by a subcommittee, offered the fi nal solution, in which the House of Representatives was to be elected by popular vote where each state has a representation in proportion to its population, while there would be equal representation in the Senate. To ease the concern of larger states, revenue bills could only be passed in the House. The judiciary was to ensure that neither federal nor state legislation nor the executive were in confl ict with the Constitution. SUFFRAGE Contrary to the wishes of many delegates and the provisions of many early constitutions of other nations, suffrage was not contingent on income or property, neither was eligibility to run for public offi ce. The issue of slavery was largely avoided. A 20-year clause was added concerning the question of fugitive slaves. However, in the question of population in relation to representation, slaves and indentured servants were to count as threefi fths of a full citizen. The Constitution further prescribed that two-thirds majority was required in Congress for the repeal of a presidential veto, an amendment to the Constitution, and consent of the Senate to treaties was needed. Federal law would overrule state legislation. A system of courts would safeguard against breaches of the Constitution, and the states were obliged to enforce federal proscriptions. Pierce Butler, delegate of South Carolina, summed up the feelings of his colleagues at the end of the convention when he cited the ancient founder of Solon, who claimed not to have given the Athenians the best government he could devise but the best they would receive. In this lay the idea that the new Constitution was the best the convention could agree upon and the best the states would accept. On September 17, 1787, the Convention adjourned, and the struggle for ratifi cation commenced, which needed consent by nine of the 13 states. First, James Madison promised amendments—later known as the Bill of Rights—to the draft that would safeguard the rights of citizens and states against the abuse of federal power. It ensured freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, safety of life and property, legal Constitution, U.S. 99 protection, and that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government rested with the states. In order to convince the reluctant citizens of New York, Jay, Madison, and Hamilton wrote a series of essays called The Federalist Papers in 1787 and 1788. Not only did they produce an infl uential vehicle of opinion, they also provided subsequent generations with valuable insights into the political thought of the founding fathers of the United States. The ratifying conventions in the states met between December 1787 and June 1788 and were much more broadly composed than the convention itself, including farmers and artisans. The struggle proved particularly hard in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Virginia and New York also were slow to ratify the Constitution. The last states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, fi nally and most reluctantly ratifi ed in 1789 and 1790, respectively. Besides differences in opinion over what would provide the most effi cient and just type of government, economic self-interest and reluctance to give up control marked the debate. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Paine, Thomas. Further reading: Cefrey, Holly. The United States Constitution and Early State Constitutions: Law and Order in the New Nation and States. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2004; Devins, Neal, and Keith E. Whittington, eds. Congress and the Constitution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. Frode Lindgjerdet Cook, James (1728–1799) English explorer and cartographer James Cook was born in Marton-in-Cleveland, England, on October 27, 1728. His family was Scottish in origin, having left Scotland for England after the upheaval of the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion. Cook’s father was a farmworker. When James was seven, his father’s employer arranged for him to attend school, and at the age of 12, he became an apprentice to a shopkeeper in a nearby coastal town. This fi rst exposure to the sea took hold of the boy, and he left his apprenticeship in 1746 for a new position with shipowners. In his new surroundings, he learned about math, navigation, compasses, and maps. In 1755 Cook became a mate on one of his employer’s ships. Later that year, Cook left to join the Royal Navy. Because war with France was impending, Cook expected that his experience and skills would be put to good use and result in rapid promotions. Cook’s fi rst assignment was aboard the Eagle, where he met Hugh Palliser. Palliser would fi gure largely in Cook’s life as a mentor and advocate. Within a month, Cook had proven his seafaring skills and was put in charge of the ship’s navigation. In 1757 Cook was again promoted and assigned to the Pembroke on Palliser’s recommendation. Now that Britain was at war with France, Cook’s assignments were related to wartime service. He spent almost a decade in North America, charting rivers and creating maps of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. During these years, he returned to England once and married Elizabeth Batts in 1762. It was not long before he was back at sea, working on charts and maps of North America. In 1767 Cook resigned command of his ship and returned to England, but his reputation soon earned him an opportunity to travel to the Pacific Ocean to observe the transit of Venus. The Royal Society commissioned his service, and upon acceptance Cook was given command of the Endeavour. In addition 100 Cook, James A noted cartographer and explorer, Captain James Cook was killed due to a misunderstanding with Hawaiian natives. to the scientifi c objectives of the mission, Cook was asked to verify or disprove the existence of a large continent in the Pacifi c Ocean. Cook and his crew sailed to the Madeira Islands, Canary Islands, Cape Verde Islands, Rio de Janeiro, and then went around Cape Horn into the Pacifi c Ocean. They reached Tahiti in April 1769, observed and documented the transit of Venus on June 3, and continued their voyage in July. The Endeavour sailed on to New Zealand, where Cook spent six months working on maps and charts of the islands and the waters. Cook and his crew had their fi rst encounters with the Maori. Although the Maori culture (particularly their ritual cannibalism) was frightening to the English sailors, Cook managed to make cultural and linguistic observations about the Maori people. In 1770 he took his ship around Australia, which he named New South Wales when he claimed it as the king’s. From there, he went to New Guinea, Java, the Cape of Good Hope, and home to England on June 12, 1771. As was common, he had lost many of his crewmen—about one-third—to scurvy during the voyage. He had circumnavigated the globe, discovering new geography along the way, and was promoted to the rank of commander. Cook again set sail on July 13, 1772, aboard the Resolution, accompanied by the Adventure. After going to Africa, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Antarctic Circle, the ships headed for the South Pacifi c. They returned home in July 1775, having charted new and existing lands. As before, Cook brought back valuable new charts and maps of the globe. He had made another discovery during this voyage; good nutrition enabled his crew to stay healthy despite the long days at sea and diffi cult conditions living on a ship. Unlike on his voyage on the Endeavour, Cook lost only one man on the entire trip. For this medical advance, Cook received the Copley Gold Medal from the Royal Society. Cook’s fi nal voyage came after his promotion to captain, and he and the crew of the Resolution headed for the northern Pacifi c to seek a passage across North America and to the Atlantic Ocean. Accompanying him was the Discovery, and together the ships set sail on July 12, 1776. After covering familiar ground (Africa, Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, Tahiti, and elsewhere), Cook and his crew discovered Hawaii and arrived on the North American coast (where Oregon is today) in February 1778. His expedition explored the coast all the way up through the Bering Strait without fi nding the northern passage they hoped to discover. Although the expedition was to continue back into the Pacifi c after a return to Hawaii, Cook was killed in a confl ict with natives in Karakakoa Bay on February 14, 1779. When he and his men had arrived in Hawaii in January, relations with natives were friendly and safe, but cultural misunderstandings brought changes in the way the crew treated the natives. Eventually things escalated to the point of a violent skirmish, and Cook was stabbed. The man who stepped up to replace Cook as commander of the voyage negotiated for the return of Cook’s body; the crew gave him a burial at sea on February 21, 1779. See also Australia: exploration and settlement; Maori wars. Further reading: Hill, J. R., and Bryan Ranft. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; Moorehead, Alan. The Fatal Impact. New York: HarperCollins, 1990. Jennifer Bussey Crimean War The Crimean War was a struggle between Russia and Britain, along with its allies, over Russian expansion into the Ottoman-controlled territories of the Black Sea. The war was part of the so-called Eastern Question, or what should be done about the weakened Ottoman Empire. Eager for territorial gains in the Balkans and control of warm water ports in the Black Sea, Russia wanted the Ottoman Empire to die as quickly as possible. Britain, wishing to thwart Russian ambitions, often stepped in to bolster the Ottomans in their confl ict with Russia. France and Austria-Hungary wavered on these diplomatic issues, but generally supported the British. Although they supported the Ottoman sultan against Russia during the 19th century, Britain and France both took territories away from the Ottomans in North Africa, Egypt, and along the Arabian Peninsula. They also demanded that the Ottomans institute political and economic reforms regarding Christian minorities within the empire and permit increased European involvement in Ottoman territories. The tanzimat, a series of Ottoman reforms, was in many ways an attempt to address these demands. Along with the so-called Great Game over Russian and British expansion into Afghanistan, the Eastern Crimean War 101 Question was one of the major diplomatic issues of the mid- to late 19th century. The events that led to the Crimean War started in Palestine, where the Russians had placed themselves as the protectors of Eastern Orthodox Christians and the French served as the protectors of the Catholic Christians. In 1847 the golden star that rested in the church in Bethlehem built over the spot where Jesus had allegedly been born disappeared. The Orthodox and Catholics both blamed one another for the theft; seeking to bolster French prestige, Napoleon III had another star made that was transported amid great pomp and ceremony to the church. When the Eastern Orthodox refused entry to the church, the dispute was referred all the way to Sultan Abdul Majid I. Both the French and Russians professed to be insulted by the rather tepid responses of the Ottoman government, and the Russians demanded that the Ottomans formally accept their protection over all Orthodox subjects in the empire. During negotiations, the Russian czar, Nicholas I, remarked that the Ottoman Empire was a “sick man” and the empire subsequently became known as “The Sick Man of Europe.” When no resolution was forthcoming, the Russians declared war against the Ottoman Empire and destroyed the Ottoman fl eet at the Bay of Sinope in 1853. In defense of the Ottomans, Britain declared war against Russia in 1854 and was joined by France and Piedmont-Sardinia. Britain and its allies landed forces in the Crimea and lay siege to Sevastopol, the headquarters of the Russian fl eet in the Black Sea. Russia lost the city in 1855. In a secondary front, the British and French also established a blockade of the Baltic Sea to prevent goods entering or leaving Russia. 102 Crimean War The fi fth Dragoon Guards of the British army make camp during the Crimean War. Britain and its allies landed forces in the Crimea and laid siege to Sevastopol, the headquarters of the Russian fl eet in the Black Sea. In 1854 the British suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Balaclava made famous by the disastrous charge of the Light Brigade. Casualties in the war were high, and many died from poor health care in the fi eld. The nursing practices and improvements in sanitary conditions made by Florence Nightingale during the war laid the foundation for improved medical care in fi eld hospitals. After extensive negotiations, the war ended with the Peace of Paris in 1856. Under the treaty, the sultan and the Great Powers guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; the sultan was to protect the minorities within the empire; the Black Sea was to be neutralized; and the waters of the Danube River were to be open to all. In addition, Russia got the Crimean Peninsula and parts of Bessarabia. Under a separate treaty, Britain, Austria, and France agreed to guarantee the Ottoman Empire, thereby prolonging its life. See also Algeria under French rule; Anglo-Russian rivalry; British occupation of Egypt. Further reading: Schroeder, Paul W. Austria, Great Britain, and the Crimean War: The Destruction of the European Concert. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972; Wetzel, David. The Crimean War: A Diplomatic History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Janice J. Terry Cuba, Ten Years’ War in Fearing a slave insurrection like the one from the 1790s that wracked Haiti, the Cuban landowning and merchant elite opted to remain part of the Spanish Empire while the rest of Spanish America gained formal independence in the 1820s. Yet by the 1860s that same elite chafed under protectionist Spanish trade policies, high taxes, and political repression. Especially hard-hit and disgruntled were the cattle ranchers and sugar planters on the eastern part of the island. On October 10, 1868, with the Grito de Yara (Cry of Yara), a coalition of elite landowners and small farmers, traders, and free persons of color launched a rebellion and proclaimed Cuban independence. The rebellion quickly spread westward, as far as eastern Las Villas Province. By the early 1870s, the rebels were supported by upward of 40,000 Cubans, from cattle barons and merchants to peons and slaves. The goals of the rebels varied widely. Most elites advocated political and economic reforms, defended slavery, and sought to maintain the island’s rigid social structure—though many also freed their slaves as a wartime necessity and in response to the incessant clamor of the slaves for their freedom. Workers and freed slaves tended to advocate radical social and political change, including the abolition of slavery, the redistribution of land, and universal suffrage. Despite the efforts of these more radical rebels, the rebellion remained confi ned mainly to the eastern part of the island. The rebel elite generally opposed taking the war to western Cuba, fearing a slave insurrection or widespread popular unrest, while western elites, with their larger landholdings and slave populations, tended to oppose the rebellion, fearing that its success would threaten their properties and undermine their privileged social position. As the war dragged on, differences between rebel factions grew, especially along lines of race and class. The rebel armies, their ranks swelled with workers, peasants, freed slaves, and poor whites, became increasingly diffi cult for the landholding elite to control. The rebel elite leadership also waged war with one eye on the United States, which many hoped would seize the opportunity to annex the island. These internal divisions combined with Spanish intransigence to stall the rebellion and keep it limited to eastern Cuba. The war lasted nearly 10 years, until a peace treaty, the Pact of Zanjón, was signed in early 1878. The rebels agreed to lay down their arms, while Spain promised political and economic reforms, general amnesty for all rebels, and freedom for all slaves and indentured servants registered in the rebel armies at the time of the peace pact. The rebellion’s failure has been attributed to numerous causes, particularly the confl icting goals of rebel leaders, their goal of annexation to the United States, which kept the war limited to eastern Cuba and dramatically circumscribed its social radicalism, and the opposition of much of Cuba’s planter class. At the same time, memories of the Ten Years’ War would endure throughout Cuba, especially in the east. Many of the most important rebel leaders of the later Cuban War of Independence gained valuable experience in the Ten Years’ War, most notably Máximo Gómez and Antonio Maceo. Overall, the war created a legacy of struggle that Cuban patriots would seize on again in their fi nal push to independence. Further reading: Ferrer, Ada. Insurgent Cuba: Race, Nation, and Revolution, 1868–1898. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999; Pérez, Jr., Louis A. Cuba: Cuba, Ten Years’ War in 103 Between Reform and Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Michael J. Schroeder Cuban War of Independence In one of the Western Hemisphere’s most broad-based and violent struggles for independence, from 1895 to 1898, Cuba was embroiled in a massive, islandwide insurrection against Spanish colonial rule that ended with U.S. intervention and quasi-colonial status under U.S. domination. In the words of one of Cuba’s preeminent historians, the Caribbean island’s War of Independence resulted in “self-government without self-determination and independence without sovereignty.” The war’s outcome represented not only a thwarting of the desire of Cuban patriots for national sovereignty but also ushered in a period of U.S. suzerainty that lasted, some scholars argue, until the Cuban revoltion of 1959. The origins of the War of Independence can be traced as far back as the early 1800s, when Cuba’s Creole elites balked at the prospect of risking their lives and properties in the face of a potential slave insurrection, as had embroiled neighboring Saint-Domingue (Haiti) after 1791—a reluctance reinforced by the arrival of upwards of 30,000 French exiles from Saint-Domingue who made Cuba their new home. Through the 19th century, Cuban elites were divided into moderate reformists who advocated greater autonomy under Spanish dominion and annexationists who envisioned U.S. annexation. Few were autonomists promoting outright independence. This changed from the 1860s, particularly in consequence of the Ten Years’ War in eastern Cuba, a struggle that inspired a new generation of leaders whose vision of Cuba Libre (Free Cuba) was at the heart of the insurrection launched in 1895. The Ten Years’ War and its aftermath had also created a large exile community of Cubans in the United States, centered in Tampa, Florida, and New York City. From abroad, groups of Cuban patriots plotted and planned the fi nal insurrection, at their helm the poet, scholar, and activist José Martí. In April 1892, after more than two decades of organizing, Martí and his compatriots in exile formed the Cuban Revolutionary Party (PRC), dedicated to the creation of a free and independent Cuba. By this time, the Cuban economy was dominated by the United States. In 1894, for instance, the United States received 84 percent of Cuba’s total exports and provided 40 percent of its total imports. In that same year, the U.S. Congress imposed stiff new tariffs on Cuban sugar imports, and Spain retaliated by imposing high tariffs on U.S. imports to Cuba. Meanwhile, the price of sugar dropped to less than two cents a pound, a historic low, while prices of imported foodstuffs rose dramatically. The combined effect sent the Cuban economy into a tailspin, negatively affecting all social sectors, including wealthy merchants and planters. Emboldened by the turn of events, on February 24, 1895, the PRC issued the Grito de Baire (Cry of Baire) calling for independence. During the same month, autonomists launched several uprisings in different parts of the island. Most were crushed, though the uprising in Oriente Province in eastern Cuba took root and spread. In April the PRC’s main leadership landed secretly in the island’s far southeast: José Martí, Máximo Gómez, and the brothers Antonio and José Maceo. On May 19, 1895, Martí was killed in a skirmish 10 miles east of Bayamo in Oriente Province. Thus martyred, memories of Martí became a rallying cry for the rebel forces. By early 1896 the insurgency had spread to every part of the island, including the western provinces of Matanzas, Havana, and Pinar del Río, which had remained mostly quiescent in previous uprisings. Scholars consider that the principal difference between the 1895 war and earlier rebellions consisted primarily in the coherence and inclusiveness of the nationalist ideology of Cuba Libre crafted by Martí and his compatriots in the years of organizing preceding the outbreak of hostilities and which came to be embraced by most Cubans during the war itself. Propelled by a vision of racial equality, social justice, and equal rights for all Cubans, the 1895 War of Independence differed in fundamental ways from previous independence struggles. In the words of rebel army chieftain Máximo Gómez, the Ten Years’ War originated “from the top down, that is why it failed; this one surges from the bottom up, that is why it will triumph.” GUERRILLA WAR In common with almost all guerrilla wars in the modern era, by 1896 the rebel columns came to be supported by a vast network of noncombatant supporters and sympathizers who provided vital resources, especially food, shelter, and information on the strength and location of Spanish military units. The war soon combined an anticolonial insurgency with a civil war pitting pro-Spanish elite landowners and sugar growers against landless and land-poor peasants and workers. Insurgents systematically torched cane fi elds while prohibiting production and export of sugar, tobacco, and 104 Cuban War of Independence other commodities in a strategy designed to strangle the economy and thereby defeat the Spanish and their elite Cuban allies. As the line between soldiers and civilians blurred, the Spanish responded by waging war against the civil populace as a whole. The acme of this approach came under General Valeriano Weyler, who from early 1896 launched his infamous reconcentration campaign. As many as 300,000 rural dwellers from all walks of life were rounded up and compelled to move into specially fortifi ed reconcentration centers. Emptying the countryside into these squalid resettlement camps, the Spanish destroyed crops, killed livestock, and destroyed thousands of homes and villages. From 1896 to 1898 tens of thousands of reconcentrados died of disease, malnutrition, and abuse. In urban areas, Weyler and the Spanish jailed, deported, and otherwise terrorized thousands of Cubans of all social classes, from street peddlers and domestic servants to lawyers, businessmen, and other professionals. From an estimated prewar population of 1.8 million, by war’s end the island’s population had dropped to around 1.5 million, a demographic decline of more than 17 percent in only three years. Weyler’s ruthless counterinsurgency approach failed to stem the insurgent tide. In fact, it had the opposite effect, driving thousands of Cubans into the insurgent ranks. By 1897 it was clear that the Spanish were losing the military battle. Many conservative Cubans, afraid of losing their privileged social position if the insurgents triumphed and increasingly dubious about Spain’s chances for victory, clamored for annexation to the United States. In early 1898 as Spanish troops grew increasingly demoralized, the insurgent leadership planned their fi nal assault on Spanish strongholds in the major cities. Rebel victory seemed only a matter of time. Meanwhile, in the United States, the chain of newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst spearheaded what came to be known as yellow journalism, demonizing the Spanish as inhuman monsters slaughtering the childlike Cuban populace and clamoring for U.S. intervention. The U.S. foreign policy establishment, which had long coveted Cuba, saw the rising tide of insurgent power as a direct threat to U.S. strategic and economic interests in Cuba and the wider Caribbean. U.S. INTERVENTION An ideal pretext for U.S. military intervention came on February 15, 1898, when the battleship the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, killing over 200 U.S. sailors. Events moved swiftly thereafter. In April 1898 newly inaugurated President William McKinley asked Congress for authorization to send U.S. troops to Cuba, and on April 25, Congress declared war on Spain. McKinley’s war message neither mentioned Cuban independence nor recognized the Cuban insurgents as a legitimate belligerent force. In this way, the Cuban War of Independence became the Spanish- American War, with the United States elbowing out of the way the insurgent forces that had all but defeated the Spanish in more than three years of bloody confl ict. The United States quickly defeated the beleaguered Spanish forces in Cuba, as well as in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. The formal cessation of hostilities came on December 10, 1898, with the Treaty of Paris. The negotiations leading to the treaty wholly excluded the Cuban insurgent forces, who were given no role in the U.S. military occupation that followed. Instead, the United States imposed the infamous Platt Amendment to the new Cuban constitution in 1901, which by a series of provisions effectively surrendered Cuban sovereignty to the United States, which dominated much of the island’s economy and politics until the triumph of the Cuban Revolution on January 1, 1959, under Fidel Castro and the 26 of July Movement. See also newspapers, North American. Further reading: Ferrer, Ada. Insurgent Cuba: Race, Nation, and Revolution, 1868–1898. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999; Pérez, Jr., Louis A. Cuba Between Empires, 1878–1902. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983; ———. Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Michael J. Schroeder

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

Cairo Conference (1921) The Cairo Conference was convened by the British to decide how to govern their newly gained Arab territories after World War I. Opening in March 1921, the conference represented a virtual who’s who of British experts on the Middle East from the foreign office and the military. Lawrence of Arabia (T. E. Lawrence), champion of the Arab revolt; Gertrude Bell, an expert on Iraqi tribes and politics; as well as Sir Percy Cox, high commissioner for Iraq, and Sir Herbert Samuel, high commissioner for Palestine, all participated. The conference was chaired by Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for the colonies. The San Remo Treaty in 1920 had formalized British control over Iraq and Palestine, formerly territories of the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. However, the British had been caught off guard by the 1920 violent revolt against their occupation of Iraq. If possible, they wanted to avoid future confrontations that necessitated the deployment of British or imperial troops and that placed heavy financial burdens on the British treasury. At the conference it was agreed that a plebiscite should be held in Iraq to elect a king who would rule in close conjunction with British advisers. Faysal, Sherif Husayn’s son and a favorite of the British, was proposed as the British nominee. After some hesitation he accepted the position. Faysal won subsequent elections that were held under British supervision, and he duly became the king of Iraq. His heirs continued to rule Iraq until they were overthrown in a violent militaryled revolution in 1958. The installation of an Arabled government made Iraq ostensibly independent, and it was ultimately granted entry into the league of nations. But Iraq remained linked with Britain by a treaty that granted Britain extensive control over its foreign affairs and allowed the British military access whenever it chose. Faysal’s older brother Abdullah was selected to become amir (prince) and ultimately king of the land east of the River Jordan. Churchill coined this new entity, Transjordan, meaning on the other side of the Jordan. Abdullah was dependent on Britain for economic and military support, and his main military force, the Arab Legion, was led by a British military officer. This territory ultimately became the hashemite monarchy in jordan under the rule of Abdullah and his heirs. His great grandson, Abdullah II, ruled Jordan in the early 21st century. The creation of allegedly independent countries was meant to assuage Sherif Husayn and Arab demands that the promises regarding Arab independence after the war seemingly made by the British in the sherif husayn–mcmahon correspondence be met. In Palestine the British retained direct political and military control and assured their security concerns in the region, especially the protection of the vital Suez Canal. During the interwar years the British retained their preeminent position while attempting, with various degrees of success, to balance the conflicting national demands of the Palestinian Arabs for an independent C Arab state and the Zionists for an independent Jewish state. The British mandate in Palestine lasted until after World War II, when the British could no longer economically or militarily afford to maintain order in Palestine, and they consequently turned over the entire issue of who should rule Palestine to the newly formed United Nations. The decisions made at the Cairo Conference failed to satisfy either Arab or Zionist demands for selfdetermination. They also formalized the division of the Arab territories into separate nations ruled by regimes established and in large part maintained by the British. The nationalist hostility and resentment fostered throughout the Arab world by the actions taken at the Cairo Conference lasted throughout the 20th century. See also Hashemite dynasty in Iraq; Iraqi rebellion (1920). Further reading: Klieman, Aaron S. Foundations of British Policy in the Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970; Wallach, Janet. Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell. New York: Anchor Books, 1999. Janice J. Terry Cairo Conference (1943) China was Japan’s fi rst target during World War II and fought alone from July 1937 until Japan attacked the U.S. Pacifi c naval base at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and British interests in East and Southeast Asia in December 1941. These events led to a general declaration of war between the Allied and Axis powers and an expansion of World War II to Asia. China’s military position and diplomatic status improved signifi cantly after December 1941. Militarily, it no longer fought alone. The Allies established the China- Burma-India theater of war, and Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek was appointed supreme commander of the China theater (which included Vietnam and Thailand) effective January 1, 1942. U.S. Lend-Lease aid to China increased, U.S. general Joseph Stilwell was appointed Chiang’s chief of staff, and the until-now U.S. volunteers of the Flying Tigers were incorporated into the U.S. Fourteenth Air Force under the command of General Claire Chennault. On the diplomatic front, China was now recognized as one of the Big Four Powers among the 26 anti-Axis nations; it also became a founding member of the United Nations (UN) and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. New treaties were negotiated and signed between China, the United States, and Great Britain in 1943 that ended a century of inequality for China. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a proponent of personal diplomacy, proposed a joint meeting with British prime minister Winston Churchill, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, and Chiang (Roosevelt had numerous meetings with Churchill). However, Chiang did not wish to meet Stalin due to his anger over the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Treaty (1941) and Soviet assistance to the Chinese communists, both damaging to his war effort. Roosevelt agreed to meet fi rst with Chiang and Churchill at Cairo, Egypt, and then with Stalin at Tehran, Iran. Accompanied by his popular U.S.–educated wife, Mei-ling Soong Chiang, Chiang met Roosevelt and Churchill in November 1943. The Cairo Declaration, published on December 1, 1943, stipulated the unconditional surrender of Japan, the complete restoration to China of territories that it had lost to Japan since 1895, the return of southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands to the Soviet Union, and that Japan give up the north Pacifi c islands it had received as mandates after World War I. The Cairo Conference was the only one during World War II that focused solely on Asia. It was also the fi rst time in modern times that China’s leader played a major world role. Roosevelt declared in his Christmas message in 1943: “Today we and the Republic of China are closer together than ever before in deep friendship and in unity of purpose.” See also Sino-Japanese War. 56 Cairo Conference (1943) U.S. offi cials leaving the 1943 Cairo Conference, which dealt with the future of Asia after World War II. Further reading: Fishel, W. R. The End of Extraterritoriality in China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952; Schaller, Michael. The United States and China in the Twentieth Century. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Calles, Plutarco (1877–1945) Mexican president Plutarco Elías Calles was president of Mexico from 1924 to 1928, taking over from Alvaro Obregón. He was the founder of the Partido Nacional Revolucionario (National Revolutionary Party), which in 1946 would become the Institutional Revolutionary Party and dominate Mexican politics until 1988. Plutarco Calles was born on September 25, 1877, the son of Plutarco Elías Lucero, a Lebanese man hired by the U.S. Army to test the use of camels in the southwestern United States. He was orphaned when he was three and went to live with his father’s sister, Josefa Campuzano, and her husband, Juan Bautista Calles. They looked after him well, and he took his uncle’s surname as his own. Young Calles became one of the earliest teachers at the Colegio Sonora and also contributed some articles on problems in the Mexican educational system of the time. However, he left teaching, as he found the strictures too great for his independent thought. During the Mexican Revolution, Calles became a supporter of Francisco Madero and became mayor of Agua Prieta, a town on the Mexican side of the Mexican-U.S. border. When Madero was deposed and killed, Calles was involved in the resistance to the new government and rallied supporters of the revolution in Sonora. He was involved in a battle in 1915 against Maytorena, an ally of Pancho Villa, defeating him. However, he was a politician rather than a military strategist and became the interim and later the constitutional governor of Sonora. There he introduced some of the educational reforms that he had advocated as a teacher. He was also affected by the anticlerical traditions of the period, expelling all Roman Catholic priests from Sonora. He also introduced laws prohibiting the production and consumption of alcohol. In 1914 President Venustiano Carranza offered Calles a cabinet position on two occasions, with Calles fi nally accepting the post of minister of industry, trade, and labor in 1919. By this time Calles was seen as a clear supporter of Alvaro Obregón, who was emerging as a major rival to Carranza. Both came from Sonora, and as the alliance between Carranza and Obregón began to falter Calles resigned from the cabinet and in April 1920 published his Plan de Agua Prieta calling on Sonorans to overthrow Carranza. After the death of Carranza, Adolfo de la Huerta became president, and during his short presidency Calles became minister of war. He was then minister of the interior for three years during Obregón’s period as president. It was not long before Obregón and de la Huerta were arguing, and very soon the latter was getting army support for a revolt. Calles sided with Obregón and quickly defeated the de la Huerta rebellion. When Obregón retired as president on December 1, 1924, Calles became the new president. One of his most controversial political decisions was the Law Reforming the Penal Code. Published on July 2, 1926, this law reinforced the anticlerical provisions of the 1917 constitution by fi ning people who wore church decorations and even threatening fi ve years in prison for anybody who questioned the law. Some Roman Catholics were involved in the Cristero revolt, which caused much trouble in central and western Mexico from 1926 until 1929. Although Calles was a revolutionary, his enemies in the United States denounced him as a communist and even as a Bolshevik. On September 29, 1927, he established a direct telephone link with Calvin Coolidge. He also managed to get the new U.S. ambassador, Dwight Morrow, who had worked for banker J. P. Morgan, to get the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh to visit Mexico City. There Lindbergh met Morrow’s daughter Anne, whom he later married. Morrow was, however, critical of many of the measures that Calles had introduced. Calles drew much of his support from the poor farmers, and his plan was to improve their lot as small businessmen. To help them, on February 1, 1926, he established the National Bank of Agricultural Credit, having overhauled the banking system and established the Bank of Mexico, modeled on the American Federal Reserve, fi ve months earlier. He also introduced a new system of running the government fi nance ministry. On November 30, 1928, Calles stood down as president, and with Obregón having been killed Emilio Portes Gil became provisional president. In 1934 Calles supported Lázaro Cárdenas, who was elected president. In the following year the press became extremely critical of Calles, who returned from retirement to defend the decisions he had made in offi ce. However, Calles, Plutarco 57 in 1936 Cárdenas had Calles deported after he was accused of trying to establish his own political party. After some years in exile in San Diego, where he refl ected on his time in offi ce and played golf, in 1944 President Manuel Ávila Camacho invited him to return to the country to provide more unity during World War II. He died on October 19, 1945, in Mexico City. Further reading: Krauze, Enrique. Mexico: Biography of Power. New York: HarperCollins, 1997. Justin Corfi eld Cárdenas, Lázaro (1895–1970) Mexican president Lázaro Cárdenas del Río was president of Mexico from 1934 to 1940 and was drawn into Mexican revolutionary politics during the presidency of Francisco Madero from 1911 until 1913. Born on May 21, 1895, in Jiquilpan de Juárez, Michoacán, Lázaro Cárdenas was the eldest of eight children. When his father died, Lázaro Cárdenas was 16 years old and had to look after the family, working variously for a printer, collecting taxes, and even in the local prison. In 1913, with the overthrow of Madero, Cárdenas joined the Constitutional Army and served under Álvaro Obregón and then Plutarco Calles. When Obregón signed the Treaty of Teoloyucan, sending rival politician Adolfo de la Huerta into exile, Cárdenas was one of the witnesses. In 1928 he became a divisional general and also governor of Michoacán, where he became well known for his work on building roads, starting schools, and promoting land reform. Calles was president from 1924 to 1928, and Cárdenas served under him. When Calles stepped down from offi ce he was succeeded by Emilio Portes Gil, then by Pascual Ortiz Rubio, and then by Abelardo L. Rodríquez. All these men were seen as “puppets” of Calles, and when Cárdenas was nominated as the candidate for the ruling Partido Nacional Revolucionario (National Revolutionary Party), most people believed that Cárdenas was also under the control of Calles. Cárdenas became president on December 1, 1934, and immediately set about trying to establish an administration that would earn the public’s respect. In a surprise move, one of his fi rst acts was to cut his own salary in half. He then arrested Calles and many of his associates, and some of these were deported, including Calles himself. Sweeping away many of the political and business elite, Cárdenas changed the name of his political party to the Party of the Mexican Revolution. In 1946 it would be renamed the Institutional Revolutionary Party. He also established a system of government whereby large trade unions, peasant organizations, and middle-class professionals played a major role in the political party, which took on a corporatist structure. Introducing a massive land reform program, Cárdenas granted large pay raises to industrial workers. The money to pay for these developments was largely drawn from Mexican oil revenue, which followed the nationalization of the petroleum reserves. Cárdenas tried to negotiate with Mexican Eagle, a company controlled by Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Royal Dutch/Shell. However, oil executives refused a plan to establish a presidential commission to look into compensation for the companies. Eventually, on March 18, 1938, the oil companies agreed to accept 26 million pesos in compensation but rejected some of the other terms. For Cárdenas, the decision came too late, and at 9:45 p.m. he nationalized the oil reserves. This resulted in some 200,000 people marching in the streets of Mexico City to celebrate for the next six hours. On the home front, Cárdenas also had to deal with an internal rebellion led by General Saturnino Cedillo. It was believed that he had been supported by foreign oil companies, and Cárdenas tried to negotiate personally with the rebel commander. With the death of Cedillo in January 1939, Mexico’s last military rebellion came to an end. For his foreign policy, Cárdenas was resolutely left wing and issued strong condemnations of the invasion of Abyssinia by Mussolini, the Japanese actions in China, the German Anschluss of Austria, and the German persecution of the Jews. Britain severed diplomatic relations with Mexico, which, curiously, led to the Mexicans’ selling oil to Nazi Germany. With the outbreak of the Spanish civil war, Cárdenas proclaimed his support for the Spanish Republic, supplying weapons and ammunition. At the end of the war, he allowed 30,000 Spanish republicans to migrate to Mexico. After the outbreak of World War II, Cárdenas condemned the German invasions of Belgium and the Netherlands and also the Soviet Union for invading Finland. After his term as president ended on December 1, 1940, Cárdenas became secretary of defense until 1945. Never wealthy, he retired to a modest house on Lake Pátzcuaro and died of cancer on October 19, 1970. 58 Cárdenas, Lázaro His son, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano, contested the Mexican presidential elections in 1988, and his grandson, Lázaro Cárdenas Batel, was also prominent in Mexican politics. Further reading: Becker, Marjorie. Setting the Virgin on Fire: Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán Peasants and the Redemption of the Mexican Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995; Krauze, Enrique. Mexico: Biography of Power. New York: HarperCollins, 1997. Justin Corfi eld Carranza, Venustiano (1859–1920) Mexican president Venustiano Carranza Garza was president of Mexico from 1914 to 1920, having been a supporter of the Mexican Revolution of Francisco Madero. Born on December 29, 1859, at Cuatro Ciénegas, in Coahuila, he was the son of Colonel Jesús Carranza, who had served in the army of Benito Juárez, and María de Jesús Garza. Carranza was educated at the Ateneo Fuente in Saltillo and then at the National Preparatory School in Mexico City, returning to Coahuila, where he took part in running the family farm and ranch. At school he had become interested in Latin American history, and this led him into a late involvement in politics when he became an opponent of Porfi rio Díaz, leading a successful revolt against Diaz’s handpicked governor of Coahuila. Carranza, who had been a municipal president, was allowed to retain much of his political power in Coahuila and was also a senator in the national congress. He initially became a supporter of General Bernardo Reyes but quickly came to support the presidential candidate Francisco Madero. Madero was forced to fl ee into exile in Texas, and from there he rallied his supporters for an attempt to overthrow Díaz. It had been Díaz who had narrowly beaten Madero in the 1910 election, but many, like Carranza, felt that Díaz should not have been allowed to stand, as it went against the Mexican constitution. Madero became president in November 1911, and Carranza, who had been his secretary of war and of the navy, was appointed governor of Coahuila, where he improved working conditions for people. However, Madero was soon faced with several rebellions against him, and in February 1913 he was overthrown and replaced by General Victoriano Huerta. Carranza then led a rebellion against Huerta, leading what became known as the Constitutionalist Army, as it supported the reinstatement of Benito Juárez’s liberal constitution of 1857. On May 1, 1915, Carranza became president and immediately tried to continue the reforms introduced by Madero. This included land reform, the formation of a more independent judiciary, and the decentralization of political power. He wanted to control the developing Mexican Revolution by trying to regulate the economic problems facing the country. Carranza introduced rules to regulate the economy, regulating banks and forcing foreign investors to renounce any diplomatic protection they had previously enjoyed. One of his major targets was the U.S.-owned oil companies, from which the taxation revenue rose 800 percent during Carranza’s fi ve years as president. The government also took over the railways and boosted support for the Compañia Telefónica y Telegrafi ca Mexicana (CTTM). Although some commentators have seen Carranza as being anti- U.S. and seeking to move against foreign companies, he was actually more focused on promoting Mexican industry. Facing criticism for being too dictatorial, Carranza was eager to prove that his moves were popular, and in November 1916 he held a constitutional convention in Querétaro, which resulted in the 1917 constitution. Carranza felt that it was too radical but agreed to implement it. It made extensive provisions for education and labor, ensuring that government schools were “free and secular,” and limited work to the eight-hour day, with minimum wages, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to strike. In March 1917 special presidential elections were held, and Carranza was reelected. Carranza became involved in the Plan de San Diego Revolt, whereby Mexican Americans in Texas staged a rebellion that they hoped would bring Texas back under Mexican control. To help, many hundreds of Mexican soldiers, disguised as civilians, crossed into Texas to launch attacks, which ended in October 1915 when the U.S. government recognized Carranza. In 1916, in answer to attacks across the border by Pancho Villa, the U.S. government sent Brigadier General John J. Pershing with 10,000 soldiers, mainly cavalry, to pursue Pancho Villa into Mexican territory with reluctant help from Carranza. Pershing had to withdraw in February 1917 without capturing Villa. As well as international problems, Carranza had some immediate trouble from revolutionary insurgents. However, he put a bounty on the head of Emiliano Zapata, who was killed soon afterward. He then turned to grooming Ignacio Bonillas as his successor, but this Carranza, Venustiano 59 was to annoy Alvaro Obregón. One of Obregón’s men tried to kill Carranza on April 8, 1920, forcing the president to fl ee Mexico City for Veracruz. He was deposed on May 7, and on his way to Veracruz, on May 21, in Tlaxcalantongo, in the Sierra Norte of Puebla State, he was assassinated by Rodolfo Herrera. He was succeeded as president by Adolfo de la Huerta, who was president until November, when he was replaced by Alvaro Obregón. See also Mexican constitution (1917). Further reading: Richmond, Douglas W. Venustiano Carranza’s Nationalist Struggle 1893–1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983; Tuchman, Barbara. The Zimmerman Telegram. London: Macmillan, 1981. Justin Corfi eld Casely Hayford, Joseph Ephraim (1866–1930) West African lawyer and politician J. E. Casely Hayford made enormously important contributions to the theory of Pan-Africanism and organized the National Congress of British West Africa. Casely Hayford became an inspiration for Ghana’s independence movement leader and fi rst president, Kwame Nkrumah, though Nkrumah’s generation no longer accepted the British presence in the way that Casely Hayford and his colleagues had. Born in 1866, the man whom many would later describe as the “uncrowned king of West Africa” enjoyed educational opportunities in Africa and in England. He completed his secondary education at a Wesleyan (Methodist) boys’ high school in Cape Coast, the major port in the colony known to the British as the Gold Coast. He spent several years as a teacher and principal in Wesleyan schools in both Accra (Nigeria) and Cape Coast. Following an apprenticeship to a European lawyer, he traveled to London in 1893 to become a lawyer himself. He completed legal training in 1896 and soon returned to Cape Coast, where he established an active, admired private practice. Casely Hayford largely identifi ed himself with other professional, European-educated black Africans, but he did not forget the traditions and worldview characteristic of the Fanti. During his youth Casely Hayford’s father had participated in protests against the British erosion of native autonomy and customs, particularly with regard to land distribution and usage. This early exposure to political activism and to debates about the virtues (and fl aws) of traditional, as opposed to British, law prepared Casely Hayford to become involved in the activities of the Aboriginal Rights Protection Society (ARPS) that formed at the end of the 19th century. Shortly after the introduction of the 1897 Lands Bill into the British parliament, traditional elites and intellectuals of the Gold Coast joined together in the ARPS to resist this proposed introduction of British property laws. Casely Hayford and John Mensah Sarbah supported the ARPS’s effort by authoring pamphlets that explicated the traditional systems and presented cogent arguments against the Lands Bill. Over the next few decades, he augmented his already strong reputation by publishing several books that revealed his intelligence and his passionate commitment to achieving prosperity in Africa. Gold Coast Native Institutions, published in 1903, dealt with the issues at stake in the Lands Bill controversy. He asserted that these societies already possessed democratic institutions and a high degree of civilization. He thought of native institutions as an asset, not a liability, in the quest for progress and modernization. In his 1911 autobiographical novel, Ethiopia Unbound: Studies in Race Emancipation, Casely Hayford provided a fi ctionalization of Pan-Africanist themes and ideals. By evoking the achievements and infl uence of the “Ethiopian” (in Pan-Africanist ideology, this signifi ed all Africans and not just the inhabitants of a particular country in Africa), Casely Hayford boasted that the African could feel proud of his heritage despite the various racial theories that cast him as inferior. The goal of activism should be to encourage the expansion of education, the preservation of Carranza’s government took control of the railways and boosted support for Mexican-owned business interests. 60 Casely Hayford, Joseph Ephraim indigenous customs where they proved durable and useful, and the unifi cation of Africans both within a single colony and within a region governed by a single imperial power. Eventually, this unity should extend across Africa and would reap tremendous economic, political, and cultural benefi ts for all Africans as they strived to modernize. In keeping with his ideology, Casely Hayford worked to organize the National Congress of British West Africa in the years immediately following World War I. The group met for the fi rst time in 1920, and Casely Hayford became its vice president. The congress’s agenda of promoting economic development, education, and democratic institutions without seeking complete independence from Britain refl ected Casely Hayford’s own hopes. He expected that British West Africa would become the continent’s leader in the overall effort to modernize. Future generations might criticize Casely Hayford for his gradualism and willingness to accept British rule. Even when frustrated by British intransigence, he never resorted to violence or other radical tactics that might have gotten results. Despite his relatively few concrete achievements, he became the leader of his generation and urged his fellow citizens to prepare to govern themselves and to take pride in their culture and traditions. Further reading: Casely Hayford, Joseph Ephraim. Ethiopia Unbound. London: Taylor & Francis, 1969; ———. Writings of Ekra-Aguman (JE Casely Hayford). Bristol, UK: Thoemmes Press, 1903, reprinted 2003; Osei-Nyame, Kwadwo. “Pan-Africanist Ideology and the African Historical Novel of Self-Discovery: The Examples of Kobina Sekyi and J.E. Casely Hayford.” Journal of African Cultural Studies, 12 (December 1999). Melanie A. Bailey Chennault, Claire Lee (1890–1958) U.S. offi cer and Air Corps organizer Claire Lee Chennault grew up in rural northeastern Louisiana. He served as a fi ghter pilot of the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War I. After the war he served as an instructor in the army air service, organized and led an air corps acrobatic team called Three Men on a Flying Trapeze, and worked on perfecting air combat tactics. Health problems led to his retirement from the military in April 1937. On July 7, 1937, Japan attacked China, beginning World War II in Asia, whereupon Italy, later Japan’s partner in the Axis, withdrew its air force mission from China. Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek contacted Chennault and his two partners in Three Men on a Flying Trapeze to help China develop an air defense system; all three accepted. Chennault arrived in China in 1938 and was commissioned as a major in the Chinese air force. He developed a close working relationship with Madame Chiang Kai-shek (Mei-ling Soong Chiang), commander of the Chinese air force. Chennault fi rst developed an effective air raid warning system by training Chinese spotters in Japaneseoccupied areas, using radios to report the takeoff and direction of Japanese planes on bombing raids. In October 1940 Chiang sent Chennault to the United States to procure planes and enlist American combat pilots and a support staff to defend China. He secured 100 P-40 Tomahawks originally intended for Great Britain (which received instead a newer model of the plane), funded with $25 million through the Lend-Lease Act passed by Congress. President Franklin D. Roosevelt then signed an executive order that allowed U.S. active and reserve military personnel to resign from their commissions and join the American Volunteer Group (AVG) to serve in China. Over 300 people—pilots, mechanics, and support personnel—signed up, including four women (two nurses and two offi ce workers). They were given fi ctitious job descriptions and headed for Toungoo, Burma. There Chennault trained them in tactics of aerial combat, with special attention to the planes and techniques used by the Japanese air force. The AVG men liked the shark mouth painted on British Tomahawk planes in Egypt but changed the logo to the “Flying Tiger.” The fi nal design was created by Walt Disney. Their fl ight jackets had a patch called the “blood chit” that read in Chinese: “I am an aviator fi ghting for China against the Japanese. Please take me to the nearest communication agency.” It proved a lifesaver for pilots shot down in Japanese-occupied China. The AVG’s fi rst action took place on December 20, 1941, against 10 Japanese bombers fl ying out of Hanoi for Kunming in China. Only one returned. Between that day and July 4, 1942, when it was disbanded, the AVG fought and won 50 actions despite overwhelming negative odds. For example, on February 25, 1942, the 166 Japanese planes attacking Rangoon, Burma, met nine Flying Tigers, who downed 23 planes and made another 10 probable kills, losing only one plane themselves. Chennault had the backing of thousands of Chinese workers, who repaired the runways after Japanese raids, and a large network of scouts, who kept him informed of Chennault, Claire Lee 61 Japanese movements. The Chinese government paid the AVG salaries and bonuses for downed Japanese planes. In all, the AVG had 299 confirmed kills and damaged 153 planes so badly that they probably could not fly again, in addition to many destroyed on the ground. It also destroyed thousands of tons of Japanese supplies and many trucks. A total of 29 AVG men would become aces for recording five or more enemy kills. It lost 12 planes in combat, 61 planes on the ground, 13 men in action, and 10 in operational accidents. Although the U.S. government could not honor the AVG members, the Chinese government decorated many for heroism, as did the British government for their actions over Rangoon. Many of its men joined the regular U.S. Army Air Corps after the AVG was disbanded. Chennault also continued to serve in China, but for the U.S. armed forces. The AVG lasted for less than two years and saw action for nine months. Chennault’s skill, temperament, and courage were essential for molding its members into a great fighting unit that inflicted heavy damage on the Japanese, boosted Chinese morale, and contributed to Allied victory in World War II. Following the war Chennault remained in China to assist the Nationalist government against the Communists. During that time he organized an airline called Civil Air Transport (CAT), which would later become a major resource for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in South Asia. Chennault died on July 27, 1958, in New Orleans, Louisiana. See also Sino-Japanese War. Further reading: Chennault, Anna. Chennault and the Flying Tigers. New York: Paul S. Ericson, 1963; Chennault, Claire. Way of a Fighter. New York: Putnam, 1949; Ford, Daniel. Flying Tigers. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991; Schultz, Duane. The Maverick War: Chennault and the Flying Tigers. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Chiang Kai-shek (1887–1975) Chinese military and political leader Chiang’s proper name was Chung-cheng, but he is better known by his courtesy name, Kai-shek. The son of gentry parents from Fenghua in Zhejiang (Chekiang) Province, Chiang was raised by a widowed mother, graduated from the first class of Paoting Military Academy, and then studied in a Japanese military school, where he joined Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary movement, later called the Kuomintang (KMT, or Nationalist Party [Guomindang]), in 1911. It became his lifelong cause. He fought in the wars that overthrew the Manchu Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in 1911 and with Sun out of power in 1912, became a businessman in Shanghai. In 1922 Chiang answered Sun’s call in Canton. Sun sent him to the Soviet Union in 1923, where he spent three months studying Red Army techniques and in talks with Leon Trotsky (father of the Soviet Red Army). This trip made him deeply suspicious of Soviet intentions in China. Back in China he founded the Whampoa Military Academy, which trained officers in Sun’s Three People’s Principles and in modern military techniques. In 1926 Chiang led the Northern Expedition to unite China under the Kuomintang. His rapid victories led to the capture of southern China and the Yangzi (Yangtze) River valley by 1927, whereupon he broke with the Soviet Union, expelled its advisers, and purged the KMT of its left-wing elements, led by Wang 62 Chiang Kai-shek Chiang Kai-shek led the Nationalist forces in the Northern Expedition and was ultimately defeated in the Chinese Civil War. Jingwei, and their Chinese Communist Party (CCP) allies. By 1928 Chiang’s forces had captured Beijing (Peking). Defeated warlords and those facing defeat promised to obey the KMT, and China was unifi ed, at least nominally. The KMT-led National Government established its capital at Nanjing (Nanking), where for the next decade Chiang led China’s fi rst modern government, whose major nation-building projects included roads and railroads, modern schools, new law codes that made women equal, industries, and the military. Chiang and his government were challenged by three enemies: the remaining warlords and his rival generals in the KMT, whom he partly succeeded in taming; the CCP, which established a Chinese Soviet Republic in Jiangxi (Kiangsi) province in southern China (Chiang defeated but did not eliminate them in the encirclement campaigns and the Long March); and Japan, which sought to seize Chinese territories beginning with the Manchurian incident in 1931 and culminating in the Marco Polo Bridge incident in 1937, which led to eight years of war that became part of World War II. Chiang led China in an exhausting war in which Japan occupied the coast but could not conquer China. China’s role in World War II led to its recognition as a leading Allied power. It was a founding member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council. However, victory came at a heavy price. China’s economy was ruined, tens of millions of refugees awaited resettlement, and Chiang’s troops were exhausted. War vastly expanded the CCP’s power, from 30,000 troops in 1937 to 3 million in 1945. The CCP refused to participate in a constitutional process initiated by the KMT, and civil war broke out between the KMT and CCP forces in 1946. Chiang resigned as president of China in 1948, and all China came under CCP control in 1949. Remnant KMT forces rallied behind Chiang on Taiwan in 1949, and Chiang resumed his presidency in 1950 and continued to serve until he died in 1975. Chiang’s government undertook land reforms and successful economic measures on Taiwan with U.S. economic and military aid. By 1975 it was well on its way to the success that made it one of the “Four Tigers” of Asia. See also anti-Communist encirclement campaigns in China (1930–1934); Cairo Conference (1943); Chinese Civil War (1946–1949); Sino- Japanese War; Xi’an Incident. Further reading: Chiang Ching-kuo. My Father. Taipei: Ming- Hwa Publications, n.d.; Chiang Kai-shek. Soviet Russia in China. New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1965; Fenby, Jonathan, and Chiang Kai-shek. China’s Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003; Keiji Furuya. Chiang Kai-shek, His Life and Times. New York: St. John’s University Press, 1981. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Chinese Civil War (1946–1949) Japan’s unconditional surrender on August 14, 1945, ended World War II. China was Japan’s fi rst victim and had suffered eight years (since 1937) of devastating warfare on its soil. In 1945 its economy was in ruins, while about a fi fth of its population awaited resettlement. While the Nationalist, or Kuomintang (KMT [Guomindang]), government and its army, led by Chiang Kai-shek, had borne the brunt of the fi ghting, the war had given the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) unprecedented opportunities for growth, refl ected in the explosive expansion of its forces from around 30,000 men in 1937 to 1 million regular troops and 2 million militiamen in 1945. Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) immediately ordered his troops, called the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), to seize land and equipment from surrendered Japanese forces. When Soviet forces evacuated Manchuria (China’s Northeastern Provinces, which had been the Japanese puppet state Manchukuo) in 1946, prior notifi cation of the CCP enabled the PLA to seize most of the land and arms left by Japan in that region also. On the other hand, Nationalist forces were scattered along many battlefronts and less favorably disposed to take control of land from the defeated Japanese despite U.S. aid in providing transportation. To forestall civil war, Chiang invited Mao to negotiate in the wartime capital Chongqing (Chungking) with the mediation of U.S. special ambassador George Marshall. An agreement was signed between the two Chinese leaders in January 1946 that included the calling of a Political Consultative Conference to form a coalition government and to form a national army. However, the two sides’ irreconcilable goals led to resumption of a bitter civil war. The CCP also refused to participate in a KMT-convened national assembly to write a constitution. Realizing his failure to mediate a peaceful settlement, President Harry S. Truman recalled Marshall in January 1947 and appointed him secretary of state. The United States then washed its hands of events in China. Chinese Civil War (1946–1949) 63 The Nationalists won most victories in the early phase of the civil war, even capturing the CCP capital Yan’an (Yenan) in March 1947. However, the tide turned in mid-1947, which Chiang’s resignation in January 1948 and a change of command to his vice president Li Zongren (Li Tsung-jen) failed to stem. On October 1, 1949, Mao proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, while the KMT government and remnant KMT forces fl ed to Taiwan, where the Republic of China remained. The outcome of the Chinese Civil War was due to Communist military victory and defeat of the KMT forces. However, many factors contributed to the outcome. World War II and China’s sufferings, the ruined economy, high infl ation, and corruption were blamed on the KMT government. The CCP capitalized on the KMT’s problems and won over many people with promises of social and economic reforms. Internationally, the CCP benefi ted from the support of the Soviet Union. The initial U.S. support and its later abandonment of the KMT contributed to its defeat and collapse. The outcome of the Chinese Civil War was a result of World War II in Asia and contributed to the worldwide cold war. See also Sino-Japanese War; United Front, fi rst (1923–1927) and second (1937–1941); Yan’an period of the Chinese Communist Party. Further reading: Chassin, Lionel M. The Communist Conquest of China: A History of the Civil War, 1945–1949. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965; Ch’en Li-fu. The Storm Clouds Clear Over China, The Memoir of Ch’en Li-fu, 1900–1993. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1994; Loh, Pichon P. Y., ed. The Kuomintang Debacle of 1949, Conquest or Collapse? Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1965; Pepper, Suzanne. The Civil War in China: The Political Struggle, 1945–1949. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Chinese Communist Party (1921–1949) The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was formed in 1921. On October 1, 1949, with the founding of the People’s Republic of China, it became the ruling party of that country. The October Revolution in Russia in 1917 and the subsequent success of the Communist Party in the Russian Civil War were the main external infl uence in the founding of the CCP. Domestically, China’s failure at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and the subsequent May Fourth Movement/intellectual revolution resulted in some left-wing Chinese, disillusioned with the West, to turn to Marxism. They were led by Chen Duxiu (Ch’en Tu-hsiu) and Li Dazao (Li Ta-chao), dean of the faculty of arts and head librarian, respectively, of the National Beijing (Peking) University, who organized Marxist study groups in several cities across China. In April 1920 Grigorii Voitinsky, an agent of the Third Communist International (Comintern), arrived in China; he conferred with Chen and Li, and they decided to organize a Chinese Communist Party. In 1921, 12 men (neither Chen nor Li could attend, but Mao Zedong [Mao Tse-tung] did) met secretly in the French Concession in Shanghai, formed the Chinese Communist Party, and elected Chen Duxiu general secretary. Starting in 1921 Russian Communist representatives began to negotiate with the Chinese government to establish formal diplomatic relations; one was Adolf Joffe, who arrived in Beijing in August 1922. Hitting an impasse with the Beijing government, he went to Shanghai in January 1923 to meet Sun Yat-sen, father of the Chinese Republic and leader of the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), then out of power. The result was a joint communique on January 26, 1923, whereby the Soviets agreed to assist Sun in reorganizing the KMT on the condition that the approximately 300 CCP members would be allowed to join 64 Chinese Communist Party (1921–1949) Mao Zedong, leader of China’s Communists, addresses some of his followers on December 6, 1944. it. The communique clearly stated that the communist social order and the Soviet system were not suited to China. Despite this many KMT members were opposed to the agreement. The CCP was not consulted about the Sun-Joffe agreement. Political shifts in 1923 allowed Sun to establish a government in Canton in opposition to the warlord government in Beijing. Many Russian advisers arrived in Canton, headed by Michael Borodin, who became political adviser to both Sun and the KMT. In January 1924 the KMT held its First Party Congress, which reorganized the party on Soviet lines and elected several CCP members, including Li Dazao and Mao, to key KMT committees. Sun’s chief lieutenant in military affairs, Chiang Kai-shek, was sent to Russia to study the organization of the Red Army, and General Galen (Blücher) came to China to help him train army offi cers. A Sun Yat-sen University was established in Moscow to train Chinese in revolutionary techniques—its fi rst students included Chiang’s son Chiang Ching-kuo (later president of the Republic of China on Taiwan) and Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-p’ing, later general secretary of the CCP). The United Front, however, was a marriage of convenience. Sun needed Soviet help, and the Soviets were willing to aid him in order to give the CCP a chance for rapid growth. Sun died in 1925, but the United Front continued under left-leaning KMT leaders. In 1926 Chiang Kai-shek was appointed commander in chief of the National Revolutionary Army and began a Northern Expedition to oust the warlords. Chiang was spectacularly successful due to his tactical brilliance, the fi ghting quality of an ideologically motivated army, an upsurge in nationalistic fervor, and Communist propaganda that won the support of peasants. By early 1927 he had gained control to the Yangzi (Yangtze) River valley. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin intended to use the KMT to nurture the CCP to a point that it could seize power, then to throw out the KMT, in his words, like “squeezed out lemons.” But Chiang squeezed fi rst, expelling the Soviet advisers and purging the CCP. Many Communists were killed, but the leaders fl ed to the hills in the Jiangxi (Kiangsi) province in southeastern China, where they organized the Chinese Soviet Republic with its capital at a little town called Ruijin (Juichin). The Nationalist government ruled China from the capital city Nanjing (Nanking) between 1928 and 1937. Besides having to deal with several major warlord revolts, it was faced with the twin challenges of Japanese imperialism and the Communist revolt. Chiang launched fi ve campaigns against the CCP in Jiangxi between 1930 and 1934. The fi rst four failed because they were poorly commanded. He took personal command of the fi fth campaign in 1934 and through a combination of political and economic reforms and effective military techniques forced the greatly reduced Communists to fl ee in the Long March. About 100,000 men and a few women fought as they fl ed through nine provinces from the southwest to northern Sha’anxi (Shensi) province between October 1934 and October 1935, with about 20,000 surviving. During the march the CCP held a conference at Zunyi (Tsunyi), where Mao emerged the most powerful leader. Japan’s attack on China in 1937 and the resulting Sino-Japanese War (1937–45) led to the forming of a Second United Front between the KMT and the CCP. Although Communist guerrilla forces also fought the Japanese, the KMT troops bore the brunt of the war and suffered the most losses. The war years were also the Yan’an period in CCP history, during which Mao and his second in command, Liu Shaoqi (Liu Shaoch’i), wrote extensively on the theory and practice of Marxism and prepared their followers for the postwar struggle with the KMT. The civil war that followed Japan’s surrender initially favored the KMT forces, but the tide turned in favor of the CCP in 1948. By the end of 1949 the Nationalist government had been defeated on mainland China. With the establishment of the People’s Republic, the CCP became the ruling party of China. See also anti-Communist encirclement campaigns in China (1930–1934); Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1924); Yan’an Period of the Chinese Communist Party. Further reading: Fairbank, John K., and Albert Feuerwerker, eds. Cambridge History of China, Part 2, Vol. 13, Republican China 1912–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; Lee, Feigon. Chen Duxiu: The Founder of the Chinese Communist Party. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983; Meisner, Maurice. Li Ta-chao and the Origins of Chinese Marxism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967 Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Churchill, Winston (1874–1965) British prime minister Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, one of the greatest prime ministers of Great Britain and Nobel Churchill, Winston 65 laureate for literature, was born on November 30, 1874, in Oxfordshire. He studied at Harrow and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. With intermingling careers in the army and in journalism, he traveled to Cuba, the North-West Frontier in India, Sudan, and South Africa. His political career began as a member of the House of Commons in 1900. After the electoral victory of the Liberals in 1906, Churchill became the undersecretary of state for the colonies. He also became the president of the Board of Trade and afterward the home secretary, undertaking major social reforms. In 1911 he was appointed lord of the admiralty in the ministry of Herbert Asquith (1852–1928) and undertook modernization of the Royal Navy. An abortive naval attack on the Ottoman Turks and the Allied defeat at Gallipoli led to Churchill’s resignation at the time of World War I. He was called back and was put in charge of munitions production in the ministry of David Lloyd George (1863–1945) and was instrumental in deploying tanks on the western front. He returned to the Conservative Party as chancellor of the exchequer in 1924 in the ministry of Stanley Baldwin (1867–1947). He reintroduced the gold standard in his tenure of fi ve years. For about a decade he did not hold any ministerial offi ce and was isolated politically because of his extreme views. Most of the political leaders also did not pay any heed to Churchill’s caution against appeasement policy toward Germany and the German march toward armament. For Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (1869– 1940) the policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany was not working. There was no relenting of the march of Germany’s army under Adolf Hitler (1889–1945). Churchill became the premier on May 13, 1940, when he also took charge of the Department of Defense. As wartime policy, he initiated measures that enabled the country to withstand the Nazi onslaught and led Great Britain toward victory. However, the bombing of German cities, particularly the fi rebombing of Dresden, which resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives, brought criticism against him. Churchill initiated changes in the war efforts of his government. For the Air Raid Precautions (ARP), half a million volunteers were enlisted. Under the National Services Act, conscription and registration of men between 18 and 41 began. In 1944 the British army had a strength of about 2,700,000. Women’s emancipation took another step when they were called upon to work outside the home in the war economy. Agencies like the Women’s Transport Service (FANY), the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF), the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS), and the Women’s Royal Naval Service were created, by which women contributed to the nation’s war efforts. Churchill, along with the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, formulated war strategy, peace plans, the reconstruction of Europe, and the fate of the Axis powers. Churchill had met Roosevelt on August 14, 1941, and signed the “Atlantic Charter,” which spelled out a plan for international peace and adherence to national sovereignty. The “Grand Alliance” was committed to defeating Nazism and bringing about world peace. The last wartime conference that Churchill attended was the Yalta Conference in Crimea in the Soviet Union (now in Ukraine) with Roosevelt and Stalin between February 4 and 11, 1945. The differences between the Soviet Union on the one hand and the United States and Great Britain on the other were emerging. Churchill had many rounds of verbal dueling with Stalin over the fate of Poland, the division of Germany, and the occupation of Berlin. Once the war was over and their common enemy was defeated, the cold war began. World War II ended in victory, but Great Britain was no longer the country commanding the most 66 Churchill, Winston Winston Churchill led Great Britain through the trials of World War II and stood in opposition to Soviet expansion. military and economic clout in the world. It was in debt £4.198 billion, and the cost of living had increased by 50 percent. Churchill’s Conservative Party was defeated in the elections of July 1945, and the Labour Party under Clement Attlee (1883–1967) came to power. Disillusionment with the Conservative Party, Churchill’s neglect of the health and educational sectors, and economic woes contributed to the Conservative defeat. Churchill was the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons. He was relentless in turning public opinion against international communism. His speech delivered on March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, was a clarion call to the West to be ultra careful against communism. He called for an alliance of the Englishspeaking peoples of the world before it was too late. This “iron curtain” speech was regarded as the beginning of the schism between the East and the West and the division of the world into two blocs. With the return of the Conservative Party to power in Britain, Churchill became the prime minister as well as the minister of defense in October 1951. Great Britain intervened in Iran after its prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh (1880–1967), nationalized the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Churchill planned a coup to oust the government with the help of the United States. He dispatched British troops to the colony of Kenya in August 1952 at the time of the Mau Mau Rebellion, which was suppressed. Churchill’s administration dealt with the rebellion against British colonial rule in Malaya. Churchill during his fi rst and second premiership was never willing to grant selfgovernment to the colonies. Although high-sounding words like democracy, national sovereignty, and selfdetermination had been uttered at the time of World War II by Churchill and other Allied leaders, granting independence to the colonies was not in Churchill’s agenda. In fact, he had shown an apathetic attitude toward the Indian freedom movement. The Quit India movement of 1942 was suppressed ruthlessly. He had lampooned Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948) as a “naked fakir.” He was also indifferent to the devastating famine of 1943 in Bengal, which killed about 3 million people. Churchill resigned in April 1955 due to ill health. He continued as a backbencher in the House of Commons until 1964. Churchill died in London on January 24, 1965. In his lifetime Churchill was bestowed with many honors. He became Sir Winston Churchill after becoming a Knight of the Garter in 1953. For his contribution to European ideals he was awarded the Karlspreis award by the city of Aachen, Germany, in 1956. The U.S. government made him an honorary citizen in 1963. His writing career began with reports from the battlefi eld like The Story of the Malakand Field Force (1898) and The River War (1899). He published a biography of his father, Life of Lord Randolph Churchill (1906), and wrote one on his ancestor, Marlborough: His Life and Times (four volumes, 1933–38). Churchill’s The World Crisis (1923–31) was a history of World War I in four volumes. He also wrote History of the English-Speaking Peoples in four volumes (1956–58). In 1953 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature for his six-volume work The Second World War (1948–53). Further reading: Best, Geoffrey. Churchill: A Study in Greatness. Rio Grande, OH: Hambledon Press, 2002; Brendon, Piers. Winston Churchill: A Biography. New York: Harper and Row, 1984; Churchill, R., and M. Gilbert. Winston S. Churchill. Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 1966–88; Churchill, Winston. The World Crisis. New York: Scribner, 1931; ———. The Second World War: The Grand Alliance. Boston: Houghton Miffl in Company, 1950; Gilbert, M. Churchill: A Life. New York: Henry Holt, 1991; Jenkins, Roy. Churchill: A Biography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001; Keegan, John. Winston Churchill. New York: Viking Press, 2002; Ramsden, J. Man of the Century: Winston Churchill and His Legend Since 1945. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Patit Paban Mishra Clemenceau, Georges (1841–1929) French politician Georges Clemenceau was one of the most famous political fi gures in the Third French Republic and a major contributor to the Allied victory in World War I. He was born in 1841 in the small village of Mouilleron-en- Pareds in the Vendée, a region on the western coast of France. Trained as a doctor, he gave up the practice of medicine for a life in politics. He began his career as mayor of Montmartre and in 1876 was elected to the Chamber of Deputies, where he identifi ed with leftist causes and became a powerful fi gure in the Radical Party. A brilliant orator and a fi ery critic of republicans in the Center and on the Right, he was instrumental in overthrowing many ministries, earning in the process the nickname “The Tiger.” Implicated in the Panama Canal scandal, he lost his seat in Clemenceau, Georges 67 the elections of 1893 and for the following nine years earned his living as a journalist. Clemenceau was elected to the senate in 1902 and in 1906 served as interior minister in the Jean Sarrien cabinet. When Sarrien resigned in October 1906, Clemenceau formed his own cabinet, which endured until 1909. While in offi ce he strengthened ties with Britain and Russia to counter Germany’s growing challenge to France. At home he continued his predecessors’ anticlerical policies and adopted a hard-line stance toward striking workers, alienating large sections of the political left. A sudden no-confi dence vote after a violent debate brought down the government in the summer of 1909. Clemenceau returned to the senate and spent the years prior to 1914 urging the buildup of France’s armed forces. In 1913 he founded a newspaper so he could warn the country about the need to rearm. When World War I broke out in August 1914 Clemenceau was disappointed that he was not recalled to the helm. After the stalemate set in on the western front he assailed the French High Command for its fruitless offensives and for failing to make adequate preparations at Verdun, the target of a German onslaught in 1916. As 1917 wore on, the war was going badly for the Allies with the impending loss of Russia, a disastrous Italian defeat at Caporetto, and defeatism threatening both the military and civilian strength of France. In this particularly dark moment the president, Raymond Poincaré, called on the 76-year-old Clemenceau to form a government after the last one had fallen in November. On taking offi ce Clemenceau’s single purpose was to win the war, subordinating all other considerations. He ended internecine fi ghting in the cabinet by selecting minor fi gures on whose loyalty he could depend. With the acquiescence of parliament he established a virtual dictatorship in order to prosecute the war more effectively. He cracked down on pacifi sts, defeatists, and traitors, anyone he considered uncommitted to total victory. He secured greater control over the military; made frequent visits to the front, where he spoke not only to generals but to ordinary soldiers; and helped bring about a unifi ed command. His unfl inching style of waging war revived popular morale and was instrumental in helping the nation withstand the series of German hammer blows in the spring of 1918. Clemenceau presided over the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, where he sought to punish and disarm Germany. It soon became apparent that Clemenceau’s demands for France’s security clashed with the postwar aims of Britain and the United States. Clemenceau fought hard to create a buffer state in the Rhineland under permanent French control but reluctantly gave up the idea on receiving an Anglo-American pledge of assistance in case Germany again attacked France. What Clemenceau did not foresee was that the treaties would be repudiated by the U.S. Senate and Britain’s parliament. Although the Versailles Treaty imposed harsh terms on Germany, Clemenceau was criticized by a sizable section of the French citizenry who considered it too lenient. Clemenceau hoped to be elected president, a largely ceremonial post, when Poincaré’s term expired in February 1920. Of all the candidates he seemed the most deserving in view of his wartime services. As it happened, the chamber and the senate rejected him in favor of the undistinguished Paul Deschanel. He resigned as premier the day after his defeat and left the senate as well. He died in 1929 and according to his wish was buried near his father at Colombier in his native Vendée. Further reading: Clemenceau, Georges. Grandeur and Misery of Victory. London: George Harrap, 1930; Duroselle, Jean- Baptiste. Clemenceau. Paris: Fayard, 1988; Watson, David R. Georges Clemenceau: A Political Biography. London: Eyre Methven, 1974. George Cassar Comintern During its existence (1919–43) the Third International, or Communist International (Comintern), was an umbrella organization of the world’s Communist Parties. Its stated mission was to coordinate all Communist activities independent of the Soviet Union. In time, however, the Comintern was made to serve the objectives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, thus, the goals of the Soviet Union. Placing its headquarters in Moscow reinforced this process. The Comintern came into being in March 1919 in response to what Lenin perceived as a critical need. The socialists who had gathered under the framework of what was known as the Second International were undisciplined. Several of the socialist parties in the various nations had supported their nations’ entry into World War I and continued to support that effort. These socialist parties were thus seen as supporting bourgeois institutions rather than advancing the socialist cause. Having just completed the fi rst stages of seizing the Russian government and beginning a civil war that would last for another four years, Lenin and the Russian Communists believed that socialists must be 68 Comintern devoted to worldwide revolution with their actions according to a prescribed party line. That line was defi ned by what were known as the 21 Points. Any Communist Party had to obey all of these directives in order to become part of the Third International. The 21 Points included the requirements for member organizations to take the name Communist Party while removing members who did not accept the points, to subscribe to the philosophy of liberating colonies, to use the combination of both illegal and legal methods (as required), to change its internal rules to conform to Comintern policy, and to obey all Comintern directives. These points were drafted by Lenin in combination with the Comintern’s fi rst head, Gregory Zinoviev. The Second Congress of the Comintern was held in 1920, with subsequent congresses in 1921, 1922, 1924, 1928, and 1935. Membership included the Communist Parties of Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, Czechsolovakia, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Spain, the United States, Yugoslavia, and the parties of Japan and various Asian and South American Nations. The offi cial language of the organization at the beginning was German. Signifi cantly, by the 1930s Russian became the offi cial language. The Comintern was organized into several departments: Cadres (which maintained fi les on all members and worked very closely with NKVD, the secret police), Propaganda and Mass Organization, Administration of Affairs, Translation, Archives, and Communications. While not stated, one of the most important functions of the Comintern was to gather information that was then sent to Soviet intelligence organizations. The leaders of the Comintern’s national sections were the individuals leading various national parties in the interwar period. Those who survived the purges of the 1930s and World War II became the leaders of the Eastern European states that became Communist in the aftermath of the war. These included George Dimitrov, head of the Comintern from 1935 to 1943 and leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party; László Rajk and Mátyás Rákosi of Hungary; Klement Gottwald of Czechoslovakia; and many in the mid- to higher levels of the new Communist governments. This international staff were regarded by the Soviets with great suspicion. In the period of the purges (the second half of the 1930s), many Comintern staff disappeared. The most prominent of those arrested was Béla Kun, who had led the Hungarian Soviet in 1919, but many others perished as well. The height of this purge of foreigners was in the years 1937 to 1938, after which it eased signifi cantly. Maintenance of party discipline was extremely important, and directives concerning activities, organization, and other changes were conveyed from this headquarters to all of the Communist Parties. Even when Communist Parties were banned and had to go underground (as happened in Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, and Yugoslavia), they still had to report to Moscow. Comintern activities also included funding the parties. Up until 1935 and the Seventh Comintern Congress the Comintern was opposed to cooperation with other socialist parties. Then the policy shifted with fascism being defi ned as the enemy. In addition to the Comintern’s support of the popular fronts, its most signifi cant effort was creating an army to fi ght for the republic in the Spanish civil war. The Comintern recruited, transported, and organized (politically as well as militarily) the volunteers who would form the International Brigades. Over 30,000 volunteers would be sent to Spain in this effort. In 1939 the Soviet Union and Germany signed a nonaggression pact. From the beginning of World War II in September 1939 until the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, the war was referred to as an imperialist confl ict, and members of the Comintern were told not to oppose the fascists. During the interwar period the Comintern (as well as communism and the Soviet Union in general) was feared by nearly all nations. The Comintern was regarded as the international arm of the Soviet Union. It was for this reason that to please his Western allies it was disbanded in 1943 on Stalin’s orders. It revived in another form in 1947 as the Communist Bureau of Information (Cominform). Cominform’s function was the same as the Comintern: to extend control over all international Communist Parties; it was abolished in 1956. Further reading: Caballero, Manuel. Latin America and the Comintern 1919–1943. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; Chase, William J. Enemies Within the Gates? The Comintern and the Stalinist Repression, 1934–1939. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001; Graham, Helen, and Paul Preston, eds. The Popular Front in Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987; Hallas, Duncan. The Comintern. London: Bookmarks, 1985; McDermott, Kevin. The Comintern: A History of International Communism From Lenin to Stalin. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press, 1996; McMeekin, Sean. The Red Millionaire: A Political Biography of Willi Munzenberg, Moscow’s Propaganda Tsar in the West. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003; Worley, Matthew, ed. In Search of Revolution: Comintern 69 International Communist Parties in the Third Period. London: I. B. Tauris, 2004. Robert Stacy Communist Party, U.S. The Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) is the most prominent communist political party in American history, though its infl uence has been minimal since the early days of the cold war. In 1919 Vladimir Lenin himself invited the communist faction of the Socialist Party to join the Comintern. Many of the Socialist Party members who broke away and formed CPUSA in response to Lenin’s invitation belonged to groups of European immigrants in the United States, bound by a common language and a commitment to socialism. A number of delegates expelled from the Socialist Party convention formed a separate communist party, the Communist Labor Party, but by 1921—at the order of the Comintern— these two parties merged. After the Russian Revolution and other socialist victories around the world, the United States was coming under the grips of the Red Scare. Many communist groups were explicit about their aims to overthrow existing institutions at the expense of those benefi tting from or protected by those institutions. Racial and nationalist issues sometimes played into this anticommunist paranoia; many American communists were part of the waves of eastern European immigration that ended the 19th century—and a signifi cant number of them were Jewish. CPUSA was predominantly eastern European and Jewish and found itself the target of anticommunist and anti- Semitic literature. The late 1920s saw confl icts with Joseph Stalin, who regarded the success of CPUSA as entirely dependent on its followers’ belief that the party was a link to the Comintern and who considered the party dangerously out of step with Soviet communism. CPUSA’s goals in the period following this shift were focused principally on labor issues and civil rights, especially after the Great Depression increased the ranks of the working poor and made union issues even more critical. Though antifascist, CPUSA opposed military action against Hitler’s Germany until the invasion of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of World War II, CPUSA became even more suspect than it had been during the Red Scare, with membership or attendance at one of its meetings grounds for suspicion, fi ring, and blacklisting. The party continued to support the Civil Rights movements and allied itself with many leftist and liberal political movements throughout the 1950s and 1960s, many of which distanced themselves in response. Over the decades since World War II, this reluctance on the part of liberal interests to ally themselves with the Communist Party has led to a decrease in the party’s infl uence. Various revelations in the aftermath of the cold war have confi rmed that at various periods the Soviet Union supported CPUSA fi nancially, hoping that its survival would weaken the United States from within. In the early days of the cold war, there were several cases of American communists passing secrets to the Soviets, including details related to the design of the atomic bomb. But despite the fears of the McCarthyists and the hopes of the Soviets, CPUSA appears to have had little impact on the American infrastructure. Further reading: Howe, Irving, and Lewis Coser. The American Communist Party: A Critical History. Boston: Beacon Press, 1957; Peters, J. The Communist Party: A Manual on Organization. New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1935. Staroibin, Joseph R. American Communism in Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Bill Kte’pi Communist Party of Indochina The Communist Party of Vietnam was formally founded on February 3, 1930, in Hong Kong by a group of Vietnamese exiles. Its fi rst members included Nguyen Ai Quoc (later better known as Ho Chi Minh). At the urging of the Comintern, the group changed the name to the Communist Party of Indochina (CPI). Despite its name, all of the initial members were Vietnamese. There was political controversy over the name Communist Party of Indochina. The choice of Indochina, which recognized a French-imposed political unit, was anathema to many Vietnamese nationalists. This led many Cambodian nationalists to see it as an attempt by the Vietnamese to try to dominate Cambodia and preserve the French political unit of Indochina after independence. It was not until the late 1940s that any Cambodians or Laotians would join. With the start of the worldwide Great Depression there was a precipitous decline in the demand for rub- 70 Communist Party, U.S. ber, and French plantations, largely located in southern and central Vietnam, responded by lowering wages or laying off workers. This led to disputes and riots on these plantations, followed by strikes in factories throughout Cochin China (southern Vietnam). The newly formed Communist Party of Indochina saw an opportunity to agitate against French rule and encouraged the peasants, who in the summer and the fall of 1930 started taking over their villages and establishing “soviets,” in which the villagers took over property from unpopular landlords and reduced rents and taxes, cutting off links with provincial governments. This rebellion became known as the Nghe- Tinh Soviet revolt because of the location of the main protests. The revolt was ruthlessly crushed by the French in the spring of 1931, and the CPI regional network was destroyed. Indeed, the headquarters of the Standing Committee of the party in Saigon was raided during a meeting in April 1931. Although the revolt was disastrous in the short term, it did bring the Communist leadership the realization that they needed to be better organized for the eventual confrontation with the French. A Second Plenum had been held just before the April 1931 arrests, and soon afterward the party had been admitted into the Communist International (Comintern). Ho Chi Minh and the surviving leadership, all in exile, realized that any attempt to eject the French could no longer rely solely on a peasant revolt. In 1936 the Popular Front government was formed in France, and from then until 1938 the CPI was able to organize again. One of the fi rst actions of the new socialist government in France was to order the release of political prisoners in Indochina, among whom were many CPI members. The party also used this period to gain extra members and became the major political group for those opposed to French rule. The signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939 and France’s subsequent declaration of war on the Germans gave French authorities in Indochina an extra reason to crack down on the CPI and isolate it from the people. The Sixth Plenum of the CPI, held in November 1939, called for an armed uprising. France’s surrender to the Germans in 1940 destroyed the belief in the invincibility of the French army among Vietnamese. Soon afterward the Japanese were able to move their soldiers into Vietnam. This again caused the CPI to debate its approach to ending French rule. Some wanted to use the Japanese presence to agitate against the French. However, Ho Chi Minh urged caution. In 1941 the central committee of the CPI held a meeting at Pac Bo and declared the formation of the League for the Independence of Vietnam, a grouping that became known as the Vietminh Front. With the outbreak of the Pacifi c war in December 1941, Ho Chi Minh sought to establish a friendly relationship with the United States, going as far as meeting General Claire Lee Chennault in March 1945. In that month the Japanese took control of Indochina, rounding up the French and throwing them in jail. On August 13–15, 1945, the CPI fi nally decided that the time for a national insurrection had come. Japan’s surrender on August 14 sealed the matter, and a general uprising in Hanoi took place on August 19, followed by a takeover of the imperial capital, Hue, four days later, and a seizing of much of Saigon two days after that. Although with British help the French were able to regain control of Saigon and later Hanoi, much of the countryside was in the hands of the CPI. However, Ho Chi Minh realized that in the forthcoming confl ict the CPI would be a liability, as the United States was becoming more anticommunist. As a result, on November 11, 1945, the CPI announced that it was dissolving itself and being replaced with the Indochinese Marxist Study Society. This was an attempt to portray the Vietminh as more nationalist than communist, and the communist movement became the Vietnamese Workers’ Party. This had the effect of allowing the eventual formation of separate Cambodian and Laotian Communist Parties. Further reading: Duiker, William J. Ho Chi Minh. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin, 2000; Ho Tai, Hue-Tam. Radicalism and the Origins of Vietnamese Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992; Marr, David G. Vietnam 1945: The Quest for Power. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997; Turner, Robert F. Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1975. Justin Corfi eld Cristero revolt Between 1926 and 1929 a localized uprising exploded in Mexico’s western states in reaction to the anti-Catholic policies of Mexican president Plutarco Calles, which attacked the privileged position of the Catholic Church. Many Mexican revolutionaries viewed the church as the enemy and worked toward stripping it of its political power and landholdings. The writers of the constitution of 1917 sought to tip the balance of Cristero revolt 71 power by weakening the church and subordinating it to a strong Mexican state through a variety of provisions. The constitution prohibited the church from owning property and barred clergy members from voting, holding political offi ce, or assembling for political purposes. Calles enforced these constitutional provisions with anticlerical legislation that forbade the wearing of religious clothing in public, placed all primary education under state control, required the registration of clergy, allowed state governors to reduce the number of practicing ecclesiastics, and called for the deportation of foreign-born clerics. In reaction Mexican priests suspended their religious duties in July 1926, refusing to hold Mass, hear confessions, or administer the sacraments. The attack on the Catholic Church enshrined in the constitution of 1917 had aroused considerable interest and action from many Mexicans. A few priests and several lay leaders encouraged direct action. One group to heed that call was the National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty (LNDLR), a civic organization that formed in May 1925. Responding to the religious strike by the clergy, the LNDLR called on Mexican Catholics to rise up in arms against the Calles government in the name of Christ and as defenders of the faith. The rebels, dubbed Cristeros due to their battle cry, “Vivo Cristo Rey,” or “Long Live Christ the King,” targeted schools in particular, the new symbol of the revolutionary regime in rural Mexico. They burned several to the ground and murdered teachers. Calles’s administration listed national education as a priority and viewed the building of 2,000 rural schools as a success; rural residents resented the schools, which placed fi nancial and land burdens on poor communities and challenged traditional Catholic norms. Full-blown rebellion exploded when Catholic insurgents bombed a government troop train. Sporadic unorganized guerrilla warfare characterized most of the violence, with local leaders recruiting a dozen to a hundred horsemen as a mounted fi ghting force, supported by groups of peasants serving as the infantry. Few of the leaders had military experience. The LNDLR attempted to direct the rebellion and create national cohesion among the Cristeros, but its members lacked knowledge of military tactics and command. The group named a journalist living in the United States, René Capistrán Garza, as the head of the Catholic revolution. Garza never assumed military command of the rebellion and worked unsuccessfully toward gaining the support of U.S. Catholics against the anticlericalism of the Mexican government. Conversely, many of the rebel leaders in the fi eld simply ignored the leadership of the LNDLR or were disenchanted with the organization’s inabilities to send supplies or reinforcements. Although many Cristeros fought courageously and mounted a signifi cant challenge to the federal army, in the end they did little to threaten the stability of the Calles government. The diplomatic work of U.S. ambassador Dwight Morrow brought the Cristero rebellion to an end. Morrow worked diligently to convince Calles to create peace in Mexico with the Catholic Church, and in 1929 negotiations between the government and the church resulted in a truce. The church agreed to operate within the law and resumed services, but it would never again command the prominent place in Mexican social and political life it had enjoyed for over two centuries. Although a minority of Catholics participated in the rebellion and it was centered in the western states of Jalisco, Michoacán, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, and Colima, by the end of the violence over 50,000 Mexicans had died, and many others had fl ed the country. Further reading: Butler, Matthew. Popular Piety and Political Identity in Mexico’s Cristero Rebellion: Michoacán, 1927– 29. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; Coerver, Don M., Suzanne B. Pasztor, and Robert M. Buffi ngton. Mexico: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Culture and History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004; Quirk, Robert E. The Mexican Revolution and the Catholic Church, 1910–1929. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. Kathleen Legg Cunha, Euclides da (1866–1909) Brazilian engineer and historian Euclides da Cunha was born on January 20, 1866, at Santa Rita do Rio Negro, near Cantagalo, close to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the eldest son of Manuel Rodrigues Pimenta da Cunha and Eudóxia Moreira. When the boy was three years old his mother died, and the family moved to Teresópolis and then went to stay with relatives in Rio de Janeiro. He attended Aquino College, where he studied under Benjamin Constant, an important republican historian. In 1886 he attended the Escola Militar da Praia Vermelha, a military school in Rio de Janeiro, then the capital of the country. Two years later he took part in a protest during a visit by Tomás Coelho, the minister of war in the last conservative cabinet under the Brazilian monarchy, which ended in the following year. 72 Cunha, Euclides da On December 11, 1888, for his role in the protest, he was expelled. Through the efforts of Major Solon Ribeiro, a prominent republican, and others, there was an amnesty for those who had protested against the emperor, and da Cunha was readmitted to the military school. He graduated in the following year and was commissioned second lieutenant. In that year he also married Ana, the daughter of Ribeiro. In 1891 da Cunha went to the Escola de Guerra (War School) and was quickly promoted to fi rst lieutenant. He then worked as a military engineer in the Brazilian army but left to study civil engineering, although he was soon working as a journalist. In 1896–97 he went, on behalf of the magazine O Estado de São Paulo, with the army to Canudos, a village in Bahia state in eastcentral Brazil, where Antônio Vicente Mendes Maciel “Conselheiro” (“the Counselor”) and his supporters had established their own “empire.” Some 30,000 people moved to Canudos with the promise of freedom for escaped slaves and impoverished Indians. The Conselheiro also promised the return of the Portuguese late medieval king, Sebastian. There were fi ve army expeditions over three years to Bahia in what became known as the War of Canudos. It took three generals, 19 guns, and 10,000 men to conquer the place, with the rebels fi ghting to the death for their messianic leader. Da Cunha’s fi rst article on the rebellion had been published in March 1897 as “A Nossa Vendéis”; this led to his becoming a reporter attached to the general staff. He spent the period from August 7 to October 1, 1897, writing about what he saw in the rebellion and the subsequent reprisals. This was to form the basis of his historical narrative, Os Sertões (1902), the fi rst major work that championed the rights of Brazil’s Indians. On September 21, 1903, da Cunha was elected to the Academia Brasileira de Letras (Brazilian Academy of Letters). On December 13 of the same year he established the Instituto Histórico e Geográfi co (Historical and Geographic Institute). In 1907 da Cunha was appointed to head a commission to deal with problems in Amazonia, and he spent December 1904 and much of 1905 traveling down the Amazon. In early 1909 da Cunha was appointed chairman and professor of logic at the Colégio Pedro II, a public secondary school in Rio de Janeiro. Euclides da Cunha was a keen amateur geographer and geologist and spent the last years of his life visiting remote parts of Brazil and writing about the Indian tribal people he met. He also was infl uenced by the Darwinian aspects of naturalism. He was the author of Contrastes e confrontos (Contrasts and confrontations, 1907), and Peru versus Bolívia (1907). On August 15, 1909, da Cunha was killed in a duel by a young army lieutenant, Dilermando de Assis, who was having an affair with his wife. He died at Piedade, Rio de Janeiro. He is commemorated by the Brazilian education department, and in August each year they observe a Semana Euclideana (Euclides Week) in his honor. The Euclides da Cunha Foundation in Brazil commemorates the historian and the role he played in the education system. Further reading: Levine, R. M. Vale of Tears: Revisiting the Canudos Massacre in Northeastern Brazil, 1893–1897. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995; Vargas Llosa, Mario. The War of the End of the World. London: Faber and Faber, 1985. Justin Corfi eld

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Canada after 1950 Since the mid-20th century Canada has been a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government. Canada’s constitution governs the legal framework of the country and consists of written text and unwritten traditions and conventions. Until November 1981 Canada’s government retained strong ties to the British parliament; the Canadian constitution could only be amended by an act of Great Britain’s parliament. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s negotiations between the provinces and the federal government that were designed to patriate the constitution and provide an amending procedure were unsuccessful. These negotiations between the federal government and the English-speaking provinces finally bore fruit in 1981, giving Canada full amendment powers over its own constitution. Prior to this, Queen Elizabeth II of England had been the chief of state, and despite the patriation of the constitution, ties between Canada and the Commonwealth of Nations remain close. On September 27, 2005, Michaëlle Jean was appointed by the queen, on the advice of the prime minister, as governor-general of Canada for a five-year term. In February 2006 Stephen Harper became prime minister. This position belongs to the leader of the political party that can obtain the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons, whose members are elected by the citizens by simple plurality in one electoral district. General elections are called by the governorgeneral when the prime minister so advises, and must occur every five years or less. Ever since its founding, Canada has had two official languages, English and French, which are the mother tongues of 56 percent and 28 percent of the population, respectively. On July 7, 1969, the Official Languages Act was proclaimed, and French was made commensurate to English throughout the federal government. This started a process that led to Canada’s redefining itself as a “bilingual” nation. French is mostly spoken in Quebec province, parts of New Brunswick, eastern and northern Ontario, Saskatchewan, the south of Nova Scotia, and the southern Manitoba province. Several aboriginal languages also have official status in the Northwest Territories. Inuktitut is the majority language in Nunavut and has official status there. Since the mid-20th century religion patterns have not changed much. They changed with the arrival of new immigrants, as they did during the country’s early days. Seventy-seven percent of Canadians identify themselves as Christians, and of that Catholics make up the largest group (43 percent). The largest Protestant denomination is the United Church of Canada; about 17 percent of Canadians have no religious affiliation; and the remaining 6 or 7 percent practice religions other than Christianity. Canada’s entertainment industry grew alongside the United States’s leading film and music industry, having had a quick development during the 1950s and 1960s, but the most rapid development after the 1990s. For C decades the Canadian film market was dominated by the American film industry, but then Canadians developed a vigorous film industry that produced a variety of well-known films, actors, and directors. Canada’s film industry is in full expansion as a site for Hollywood productions. The series The X-Files was famously shot in Vancouver, as was Stargate, the 2003 version of Battlestar Galactica, and The Outer Limits. The American series Queer as Folk was filmed in Toronto. After the 1980s Canada—and Vancouver in particular—became known as Hollywood North. Canadian literature shows a mixture of French and Anglo-Saxon trends. After the mid-20th century there were many advances in literature, mainly since the 1980s. But before those years Canada’s literature also had some important authors. Whether written in English or French, Canadian literature reflects three main parts of the Canadian experience: nature and the relation with the sea, frontier life, and Canada’s position in the world. Further reading: Bothwell, Robert, Ian Drummond, and John English. Canada Since 1945. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989; Morton, Desmond. A Short History of Canada. Edmonton: Hurtig, 1983; Norrie, Kenneth, Douglas Owram, and J. C. Herbert Emery. A History of the Canadian Economy. Toronto: Thomson-Nelson, 2002; Wallace, Iain. A Geography of the Canadian Economy. Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2002. Diego I. Murguía Caribbean Basin Initiative Launched by U.S. president Ronald Reagan in 1983, the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) built on the legacy of the Alliance for Progress (1961–69) to foster free trade, open markets, economic growth, and export diversification throughout the circum-Caribbean, including Central America. Formally called the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), and going into effect on January 1, 1984, the program was made permanent in the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Expansion Act (CBI II) in 1990 and was expanded substantially in 2000 under President Bill Clinton in the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA). The CBTPA, set to expire in 2008, includes 24 countries in a regional trading bloc akin to that created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Measured in terms of the dollar values of goods exchanged, the initiative has proven successful. In 2004 the total value of CBI exports to the United States more than tripled from 1984, reaching $27.8 billion, while U.S. exports to CBI countries reached $24.5 billion, 1.6 percent of total U.S. exports, making the CBI region the eighth largest recipient of U.S. exports. The CBI was launched during a period of escalating tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, when the U.S. foreign policy establishment was deeply concerned with the growth of leftist and revolutionary movements in Central America and the Caribbean. By 1983 the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua was entering its fourth year; the leftist FDR-FMLN political and guerrilla movements in El Salvador posed a serious challenge to that country’s U.S.-supported government; and the Guatemalan military’s U.S.-supported war against several guerrilla groups and genocidal campaign against the country’s indigenous peoples had already peaked. The October 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada to oust that country’s anti-imperialist, Marxist-oriented government further underscored the geopolitical concerns of U.S. foreign policymakers. The CBI, which excluded Nicaragua until the Sandinista electoral defeat in 1990, was thus similar to Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress in its goal of weakening Soviet and Cuban influence, preventing leftist movements and governments from expanding their power, and tightening the economic integration between the United States and the nationstates of its historic “backyard.” Scholarly interpretations of the CBI’s economic and social impact vary widely. All observers agree that the CBI has expanded trade and promoted economic growth, but disagree over whether that growth has fostered sustainable economic development, diminished inequalities, alleviated poverty, or enhanced the social well-being of the majority. Critics charge that the CBI’s export-led model of growth has done little to improve living standards and has perpetuated structural inequalities within CBI member countries and between them and the United States. The CBI’s supporters argue that economic growth remains the sine qua non of poverty alleviation and improved social conditions. While it is difficult to disaggregate the effects of CBI-induced economic changes from other factors, the evidence indicates that poverty rates, socioeconomic differentiation, and indices of social well-being in most CBI countries have seen marginal improvements at best since 1984. All observers agree that the CBI and related U.S. laws 78 Caribbean Basin Initiative will continue to have a major impact on the region’s economies and inhabitants. Further reading: Alonso, Irma T., ed. Caribbean Economies in the Twenty-First Century. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2002; Rosen, Ellen Israel. Making Sweatshops: The Globalization of the U.S. Apparel Industry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Michael J. Schroeder Carter, Jimmy (1924– ) U.S. president James Earl Carter, Jr., was the president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, succeeding Gerald Ford. Though he only served a single term, his was a significant presidency in both foreign and domestic affairs, and he presided over a tumultuous time in American history. Like his predecessor, he was a gifted student and athlete and a navy officer. He resigned from the navy in 1953 immediately following the death of his father and worked on his family’s Georgia peanut farm for the rest of the decade, becoming active in local politics. In 1962 he was elected to the State Senate, and he ran for governor only four years later, losing, but winning the 1970 election. During the election, he seemed to pay lip service to segregationists, but he condemned segregation immediately upon attaining office. He was the first southern governor to condemn segregation, and he underscored his point by appointing blacks to many state offices. A reform-minded pragmatist, he worked at streamlining state government, condensing programs and agencies while increasing school funding, especially in the poorer parts of the state. But nothing in his governorship brought him to national attention, and when he ran for president in 1976, he was almost a complete unknown. He made his reorganization of state government the centerpiece of his national campaign, and his soft-spoken charisma, southernness, and traditional moral character (Carter had taught Sunday school for years, and his sister Ruth was a well-known evangelist) were well received in the aftermath of Nixon’s corruption and Ford’s irrelevance. Though his opposition to segregation distanced him from the Dixiecrats, he was conservative for a Democrat and had criticized 1972 Democratic candidate George McGovern for being too liberal. Sentiment was against Ford sufficiently for Carter to win the election, albeit by a slim (2 percent) margin. He was the first southerner elected president since 1848. As president, Carter inherited a difficult economic situation. Stagflation and the 1973 oil crisis had discouraged growth for too long, after the lengthy healthy period to which Americans had become accustomed after World War II. The 1979 energy crisis followed the Iranian revolution, when the (previously Americansupported) shah of Iran fled his country and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to seize power. Inflation reached double digits, and although many of Carter’s fixes were probably effective, the results were not seen until after he had lost the 1980 election. Where Carter excelled was in diplomacy. In September 1978 he brought Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat to Camp David, to continue and finalize peace negotiations that had been ongoing for months in the wake of the Yom Kippur War and the other Middle Eastern conflicts of the decade. The Camp David accords remain one of the most important developments in modern Middle Eastern relations, setting a precedent for Arab-Israeli diplomacy while segregating powerful Egypt from its Arab allies. Carter’s foreign policy was driven by his respect for human rights, which may have influenced his decision to deny the shah’s request for help during the Iranian Revolution. Though the shah’s reign had begun with American support immediately after World War II, and his governance remained more liberal and Western-friendly than any other in the region, his social policies were still a far cry from what even conservative Westerners would support, and by the late ’70s, this gap was more pronounced than it had been 30 years earlier. Carter did eventually grant the exiled shah entry to the United States for cancer treatment in October 1979. In response, Iranian militants seized the American embassy in Tehran and held 53 hostages for more than a year. There is widespread speculation that the final negotiations were delayed by parties seeking Ronald Reagan’s election; the hostages were released on the day of his inauguration. The combination of the failing economy and the hostage crisis led to Carter’s loss to Reagan in the 1980 election. For years he was considered something of a joke, emblematic of a weak Democratic Party unable to contend with the 12-year Reagan-Bush era. He remained active in humanitarian work, especially in the areas of human rights and public health, and was only the third U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Since the 1990s he has taken on a role as occasional diplomat, visiting countries such as North Korea and Venezuela, and was the first president to visit Cuba Carter, Jimmy 79 since the 1959 revolution. He has also been active with the charity Habitat for Humanity. Further reading: Bourne, Peter G. Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography From Plains to Post-Presidency. New York Scribner, 1997; Harris, David. The Crisis: The President, The Prophet, and the Shah: 1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam. New York: Little, Brown, 2004; Kaufman, Burton I. The Presidency of James Earl Carter Jr. Lawrence: Kansas University Press, 1993; Schram, Martin. Running For President, 1976: The Carter Campaign. New York: Stein and Day, 1977. Bill Kte’pi Castro, Fidel (1926– ) Cuban revolutionary leader Head of the Cuban Communist Party and leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro is one of the major world figures of the second half of the 20th century. One of the longest-lived heads of state in modern times, and one of the most controversial, Castro was born out of wedlock on August 13, 1926, a few kilometers south of the Bay of Nipe in then-Oriente province (present-day Holguín) in eastern Cuba. His father, Angel Castro y Argiz, was a Galician immigrant and owner of a large sugar estate; his mother, Lina Ruz González, was a servant in Angel’s house and, after Fidel’s 17th birthday, Angel’s second wife. As an adult, Fidel grew estranged from his parents, maintaining close relations mainly with his younger brother Raúl, who also became one of the revolution’s premier leaders. Graduating from the Jesuit high school Belén in Havana in 1945, Castro entered the University of Havana the same year. In 1947 he joined the moderately reformist and anti-imperialist Orthodox Party (Partido Ortodoxo), led by Eduardo Chibás. In 1948 he traveled to Bogotá, Colombia, for a student conference being held alongside the ninth meeting of the Pan- American Union. There he witnessed and participated in the extraordinary events of the Bogotazo, in which liberal leader Jorge Gaitán was assassinated and Bogotá erupted in massive street violence. The events are considered to have had a major impact on his thinking on the role of violence and popular insurrection in sparking social change. Returning to Cuba, he married Mirta Díaz Balart, daughter of a wealthy Cuban family. He earned his law degree in 1950 and joined a small firm in Havana whose work focused mainly on the poor. Intensely interested in politics, he became a parliamentary candidate in 1952, only to see the elections cancelled following the coup by General Fulgencio Batista. Determined to challenge the regime, he and his brother Raúl plotted and carried out an assault on the Moncada barracks in eastern Cuba on July 26, 1953. The assault proved a military defeat but a political victory, with his four-hour “History will absolve me” speech at his October 1953 trial propelling him into national prominence. Imprisoned for less than 20 months of a 15-year sentence (released in May 1955 in a general amnesty), he went into exile in Mexico and began organizing his 26 July Movement, composed of Cuban exiles and other Latin Americans, including Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Forming the nucleus of a guerrilla army, he and his followers returned clandestinely to eastern Cuba on December 2, 1956, where for the next two years they waged a guerrilla war against the Batista regime. Seizing power on January 1, 1959, he was still vague about his ideology, which by his public statements could be 80 Castro, Fidel Fidel Castro in his early days in power. He was the undisputed leader of Cuba from 1959 until 2008. characterized as broadly nationalist and focused on issues of social justice. From 1959 to 1961 the revolution radicalized and became integral to the cold war. In December 1961 he announced, “I am a Marxist- Leninist.” Since 1959 he was the undisputed leader of the Cuban revolution and government—revered by some, despised by others (especially the Miami-based cuban exile community)—and renowned for his volcanic energy, hours-long speeches, and hands-on leadership style. In early 2007 his death appeared imminent, but he remained in power until his resignation in February 2008. See also Bay of Pigs. Further reading: Gott, Richard. Cuba: A New History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004; Thomas, Hugh. Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Michael J. Schroeder Central Asia after 1991 The former Soviet Republics of Central Asia consist of the present-day states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. All five of the so-called stans received their independence during the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Often the five former Soviet republics are considered collectively because they share many of the same challenges and problems. One challenge commonly faced by the states of Central Asia is the rise of radical Islam. The geographic center of the movement is the Fergana Valley. The valley is shared by Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, and has hosted a centuries-long tradition of independent Islamic thinking. Namangan, a key city in the valley, is also the home of a key founding member of the radical terrorist group the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU): Juma Namangani. Another typical problem in the region is one of effective governance. Recent World Bank ratings attest to the regional governance dilemma. Quantitative scores for variables such as voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption rank near the bottom third for each state. Another significant problem in Central Asia is the environment. Cities in the region face water shortages and contaminated water, pollution, and radioactive and toxic waste issues. Radon and uranium levels are notably high in the region. Many have suggested that the chronic environmental problems have been inherited from the Soviet regime. During the 1930s Joseph Stalin attempted to increase Soviet cotton production by constructing new canals in order to irrigate Central Asian lands. Water from the Aral continues to be diverted to the existing irrigation systems. As a result, a contemporary ecological problem is the constant shrinking of the Aral Sea. In addition, land surrounding the Aral Sea faces desertification, which jeopardizes homes and businesses near the water. Airborne pollutants have resulted in high levels of tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, and cardiovascular and liver diseases. Although each of the former Soviet Central Asian republics face similar challenges, each state also offers a different narrative, and generalizations do not tell the entire story. Indeed, each of the five former Soviet republics has embarked on different paths since independence. Kazakhstan The formal name for Kazakhstan and the successor to the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic is the Republic of Kazakhstan. The capital is Astana. Kazakhstan is 1,049,155 square miles (about twice the size of Alaska). Figures from 2004 show a population of 15,143,704. Approximately 47 percent of all Kazakhs are Muslim. The predominant languages are Kazak and Russian. Kazakhstan neighbors Russia to the west and north, China to the east, and Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan to the south. President Nursultan Nazarbayev has served as the chief of state since before the December 16, 1991, day of independence. A sense of identity in Kazakhstan developed during the Soviet era. Ethnic Kazakh Dinmukhamed Kunaev served as the first secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party from 1956 to December 1986. Mikhail Gorbachev replaced Kunaev with a Slav named Gennady Kolbin. The violence and rioting that followed forced Gorbachev to turn to another Kazakh in order to placate Kazakh opinion. During the August 1991 putsch against Gorbachev, Nazarbayev supported Gorbachev. Shortly afterward Nazarbayev banned all political activity in the government as well as in the courts and police. As the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Kazakh president was one of the last to push for independence from the Soviet Union. Economically, Kazakhstan enjoys a prosperous grain agribusiness in the north and raises stock in the south. Many extractive minerals can be found in the northeast: coal, iron ore, lead, zinc, copper, chromite, nickel, molybdenum, and tin. In addition, Kazakhstan Central Asia after 1991 81 enjoys large deposits of oil and gas. The rich natural resources have, in addition, made Kazakhstan an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. In fact, from 1991 to 2002, direct foreign investment in Kazakhstan was over $13 billion. Kazakhstan boasts 4 billion tons of provable and recoverable oil reserves and 2 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Estimates suggest that Kazakhstan may be able to produce about 3 million barrels of oil a day by the year 2015. Kazakhstan’s constitution dates to 1993. The system is a presidential-parliamentary model similar to that in Russia. The executive was to be popularly elected. In March 1994 the Constitutional Court found that the method previously used to elect representatives to the lower house of parliament was illegal. A change was made so that the lower house, the Majlis, would be elected and the upper house, the Senate, would be appointed. The president controlled seven appointments to the Senate, and indirect elections of a joint session of all representative bodies of all local government units filled the other 32. By December 1995 new parliamentary elections were held. Nazarbayev constructed his own political party, Otan, in 1999. That same year, 44 of 67 members in the lower house of parliament joined the Otan Party. The process for filling seats in the lower house was again changed. This time, 10 of the 67 possible seats were reserved for proportional representation for parties meeting a 7 percent threshold. Under pressure from Nazarbayev during October 1998, the parliament moved elections scheduled for December 2000 to January 1999. Ultimately Nazarbayev won the elections and received more than 79 percent of the vote. However, many questions existed about the fairness of the 1999 elections. Former prime minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin, a significant opponent of the regime, was not allowed to run. Nazarbayev was re-elected in 2005 by more than 90 percent of the vote. Outsiders again criticized the election as unfair. Overall, Kazakhstan operates in the tradition of strong presidential governments in the region, with a great deal of control in the hands of Nazarbayev and his family. Kyrgyzstan The formal name of the independent successor to the Kirgiz Soviet Socialist Republic is the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. The capital is Bishkek. Kyrgyzstan is 76,640 square miles in total area (a bit smaller than Nebraska). Figures from 2004 indicate a population of 5,081,429. Approximately 75 percent of the Kyrgyzstan population is Muslim. The prominent languages are Kyrgyz and Russian. Kyrgzstan is bordered by Kazakhstan in the north, Uzbekistan to the west, Tajikistan to the west and southwest, and China to the east. Until the Soviet years, many in Kyrgyzstan were primarily nomadic. Life under the Soviet Union led to more modern life and movement to cities. Like many republics in the former Soviet Union, the late 1980s and early 1990s brought questions of identity to Kyrgyzstan. Gorbachev’s program of perestroika led to ethnic riots in 1990. In an area bordering Uzbekistan, riots led to the deaths of some 200 civilians. The leader of the Kyrgyz Communist Party, Absamat Masaliev, called for the Supreme Soviet to elect him as president. The movement called Democratic Kyrgyzstan emerged in opposition to Masaliev, and Askar Akayev was chosen as president. Early in its history, Kygyzstan was seen by many as the most progressive of all Central Asian governments. In fact, the United States symbolically opened its first Central Asian embassy in Bishkek on February 1, 1992. By 1993 Kyrgyzstan was receiving the highest per-capita aid from the United States of any of the Central Asian states. In 1988 Kyrgyzstan was the first of the new Central Asian states to be invited to join the World Trade Organization. Bishkek has had fairly warm relations with Russia, which include the presence of Russian troops in Kyrgyzstan. The Central Asian state also offered bases to U.S. forces and allowed military flights into the Manas International Airport in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since independence, Kyrgyzstan has distributed free land to approximately 700,000 citizens. Much of the industry is devoted to extractive ventures. Mining of antimony and mercury ores are a source of revenue, and lead, zinc, and coal are all mined as well. Most of the economy, however, still relies on agriculture. Akayev led Kyrgyzstan on a path of political liberalization. Eventually, opposition to market reforms from the legislature led to Akayev’s calling for a referendum for February 1994. In that referendum, 96 percent of respondents favored Akayev and his economic program. He responded by dissolving a leftover from the Soviet era, the 350-seat Supreme Soviet. In its place Akayev created a bicameral legislature called the Assembly of the People of Kyrgyzstan. Elections were set for February 5, 1995. In those elections, more than 1,000 candidates ran for the 105 seats in the assembly. Approximately 80 percent of the candidates ran as independents and, ultimately, created an assembly very receptive to Akayev’s policies. 82 Central Asia after 1991 After the 1995 elections, Akayev began to increase his own power through a number of constitutional amendments. A policy of privatization resulted in about 61 percent of all state-owned enterprises being privatized by May 1997. At that time Akayev became convinced that state assets were being sold too quickly, and a oneyear ban on privatization resulted. In April 1998 the legislature approved further privatization. Many within the political opposition, however, claim that members of the legislature personally profited from the privatization process. As the parliamentary elections of February– March 2000 grew nearer, the Kyrgyz government made a concerted effort to minimize the turnout of opposition parties. In fact, the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe criticized the elections as being unfair. Scheduled presidential elections in October 2000 created another challenge for Akayev. Akayev’s most significant opposition was widely believed to be Feliks Kulov, a former vice president. Kulov, however, was arrested, acquitted, and rearrested on what many felt were fabricated charges, and eventually he pulled out of the race. Akayev was reelected with 74.47 percent of the vote. After the election Feliks Kulov called for cooperation with Akayev’s government. In spite of this, Kulov was arrested once again in 2001. In November that year, the opposition parties formed a “People’s Congress” and, in what was mainly a symbolic move, elected Kulov chair. Opposition continued to grow when, in January 2002, a parliament deputy from southern Kyrgyzstan, Azimbek Beknazarov, was arrested. Clashes between protesters and government authorities in March resulted in the deaths of six individuals. In April Kyrgyz authorities launched an investigation into the deaths. In May, as the commission released its report, protests calling for the resignation of Akayev spread throughout Kyrgyzstan. Akayev ordered the release of Beknazarov and even replaced the prime minister. Participation exceeded 86 percent. The referendum found that 75.5 percent supported the notion that Akayev serve until the completion of his term—in 2005. But 12 opposition parties refused to participate in the referendum. The most significant change in the constitution was the movement from a bicameral to unicameral legislature, to be effective at the end of the legislative term. On March 24, 2005, Akayev bowed to widespread protests and the will of the people and resigned. The “Tulip Revolution” was seen by many as the result of Akayev’s inability to address growing levels of crime and corruption as well as questions concerning his reelection. In the political shakeup that ensued, Kurmanbek Bakiev became president, and Omurbek Tekebaev became speaker of the Jogorku Kenesh, the parliament of Kyrgyzstan. Bakiev and Tekebaev engaged in a power struggle of their own. Tajikistan The formal name for Tajikistan is the Republic of Tajikistan, which is the independent successor state to the former Tadzhik Soviet Socialist Republic. Tajikistan’s 2004 figures placed the population at 7,011,556. The predominant language is Tajik. Tajikistan is neighbored by China to the east, Afghanistan to the south, Uzbekistan to the west and north, and Kyrgyzstan to the north. Approximately 85 percent of Tajiks are Muslim. A large number of Tajikistan’s Muslims are Sunni from the Hanafi School. Mountain Tajiks boast a number of Shi’ite communities. During the Soviet period, very few mosques were allowed. In addition, 80 percent of the population is Tajik, with the next-largest group being Uzbek at about 15 percent. The capital city of Tajikistan is Dushanbe. During the Soviet period, Tajikistan was typically ruled by leaders sent by Moscow. As late as 1990 Tajiks were a minority in the Tajik Communist Party. The programs of perestroika and glasnost introduced by Gorbachev changed the dynamics of Tajik politics. In August 1990 the Tajik Supreme Soviet claimed sovereignty. The Tajik Communist Party leader and chair of the Supreme Soviet, Kakhar Makhkamov, resigned in August 1991 because of his support for Central Asia after 1991 83 Civic education students listen to a visiting local religious leader, or mullah, in Kyrgyzstan. the hard-liner coup against Gorbachev. Makhkamov was replaced by Kadriddin Aslonov. Upon his appointment, Aslonov immediately resigned from the Politburo of the Tajik Communist Party and used a decree to ban the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from Tajik territory. The Tajik Supreme Soviet responded by ousting Aslonov as chair and electing Rakhmon Nabiyev. Nabiyev resigned as the chair of the Supreme Soviet on October 6. Elections set by the Supreme Soviet on November 24 initially featured 10 candidates—ultimately 7 would vie for the position. Rakhmon Nabiyev won of the November 1991 election with 56.9 percent of the vote. By the spring of 1992 opposition to Nabiyev came in the form of the Islamic-led Union of Popular Forces. The union pushed for multiparty elections, greater freedom of religion, and the removal of Nabiyev. The Tajik parliament gave Nabiyev the use of decree in order to strengthen the hand of the executive. Political protests continued, and Nabiyev resorted to the use of a state of emergency. In May opposition forces seized the capital and created a revolutionary council. Nabiyev lifted the state of emergency and promised to form a government of reconciliation. Eight seats in the new government were reserved for a coalition of democrats and moderate Islamists and the Islamic Revival Party. The compromise government only brought a brief period of peace. Nabiyev now not only faced criticism from Islamic opponents but also found himself under attack from ex-communists who insisted that he had ceded too much to the opposition. The central government quickly lost control of the countryside. Former communists began to seize local governments in the north, and the Islamists seized local governments in the south and the east. Nabiyev requested international peacekeepers from the Commonwealth of Independent States, while opposition forces declared an open rebellion. Nabiyev was captured as he attempted to flee Dushanbe and was forced to resign. A new Islamicdemocratic coalition government, led by Akbarsho Iskandarov, claimed control. The end result, at least for a time, was that the most developed regions of Tajikistan—the north—fell under the power of excommunists aligned with Nabiyev. Forces loyal to Nabiyev took over Dushanbe on December 10 and installed Emomali Rakhmonov as acting president. The Islamic forces fled to the mountainous regions of Tajikistan and to areas over the border in Afghanistan. The Tajik civil war was in full swing. As the war continued, the Tajik government received a great deal of financial and military support from Russia. By the fall of 1993 there were some 20,000 Russian troops in Tajikistan. Russian finances were providing an estimated 50 percent of the Tajik budget as well. The nearby government of Uzbekistan also provided a significant amount of support. In the summer of 1994 talks between the rebels and the Tajik government, held in Islamabad, led to a cessation of hostilities. In November 1994 presidential elections were held between Rakhmonov and former prime minister Abdumalik Abdulajanov. The new constitution was approved, and Rakhmonov won reelection with 60 percent of the vote. By early 1996 President Rakhmonov faced accusations of corruption. Russia informed Rakhmonov that they would not intervene again to save the regime. Rakhmonov began negotiations with the rebels and dismissed several high-ranking government officials. Under a great deal of pressure from the Russians, Rakhmonov traveled to Moscow in December 1996 to meet with the Islamic Renaissance Party, the largest party within the United Tajik Opposition (UTO). A peace agreement was reached, and a Reconciliation Council was formed. Once Rakhmonov returned to Dushanbe, however, he was unable to convince political allies to sign off on the agreement. Again, after tremendous pressure from Russia, Rakhmonov returned to Moscow in the spring of 1997 to negotiate with the UTO. Rakhmonov agreed to allow opposition troops into the Tajik armed forces. Meetings followed in Tehran in April 1997 and in Moscow in June 1997. The two political parties that supported the government— the People’s Party and the Political and Economic Renewal Party—combined to form the National Unity Movement. Tajik politics were set to be a contest between two different parties: one in support of President Rakhmonov and one opposition party. The movement to a two-party system, it was hoped, would have the effect of limiting the violence inherent heretofore in Tajik politics. The late 1990s were characterized by a number of political assassinations. In 1998 opposition politician Otakhon Latifi was killed, and a former prosecutor general, Tolib Boboyev, was killed in early 1999. The 1997 agreement called for parliamentary elections by 1998, but the ban on Islamic political parties retarded rapid reconciliation. The Tajik people, by 1999, faced three crucial amendments: the establishment of Islamic political parties, the creation of an upper chamber of parliament, and a single seven-year presidential term. All three amendments were approved on September 26. Presidential elections were scheduled for November 6, 84 Central Asia after 1991 1999, and lower-house parliamentary elections for February 27, 2000. Three potential presidential candidates were not allowed on the ballot based on the claim that they had not achieved the required number of signatures. The Islamic Renaissance Party—a key member of the UTO—called for a boycott of the presidential elections. The end result was that Rakhmonov only faced nominal resistance and was reelected with 96 percent of the vote. Parliamentary elections were just as complicated. In fact, the Supreme Court used various legal machinations to suppress opposition. The only parties to meet the 5 percent parliamentary threshold were the People’s Democratic Party, the Communist Party, and the Islamic Renaissance Party. Elections for the newly created upper house, the Majlisi Milliy, were held on March 23, 2000. In the Tajik system of governance, the Majlisi Milliy theoretically serves as a stabilizing factor in domestic politics. As in other states in the region, one of the primary concerns of the Tajik government is the specter of radical Islam. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which was headquartered in Afghanistan, launched incursions into Kyrgyzstan via Tajikistan in 1999 and 2000. The Hizb ut-Tahrir later became a concern as well. Hizb ut-Tahrir called for an Islamic state in Central Asia. In 2002 President Rakhmonov stepped up attacks and surveillance of Islamic groups. Another significant modern problem facing Tajikistan is the transit of illegal drugs and associated problems. As a result of the 1992 to 1997 Tajik civil war, Tajikistan’s relations with Russia have been close. Even after the civil war ended, Russian troops remained in order to protect the Tajik border with Afghanistan. During the reign of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Tajikistan offered sanctuary to a Tajik commander and his troops. Ultimately, Tajikistan feared the potential spread of radical Islam from Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the United States, Tajikistan was among the first to offer cooperation with the United States—despite the relatively warm relationship between Tajikistan and Russia. Tajikistan permitted the use of the Dushanbe Airport and allowed the basing of a small contingent of U.S. troops within its sovereign borders. Tajikistan boasts a presidential-parliamentary government. The president is popularly elected within a multiparty system and fills both the ceremonial role of head of state and the policy-creating role of a chief executive officer. The prime minister is appointed by the president and is confirmed by the lower chamber of parliament. The prime minister and the cabinet control the day-to-day operations of the government. President Rakhmonov and many of his political allies are former members of the Tajik Communist Party. The power-sharing arrangement of 1997 guaranteed 30 percent of government and local posts to opposition parties. Key to this arrangement is the reality that all geographic areas are represented. The power-sharing agreement was renewed in 1999 and then again, indefinitely, in 2002. Most of the Tajik economy is agricultural, and cotton is the most dominant agricultural product. Industrially, Tajikistan is mostly involved in the light manufacturing segments of cotton and silk processing. But Tajikistan is rich in nonferrous metals. Mining of coal, iron, lead, zinc, antimony, mercury, gold, tin, and tungsten are the most common extractive industries. Some deposits of oil and natural gas have also been discovered. Over three-quarters of Tajiks live at or near the poverty line. Politically, the uneasy peace that lasted since the end of the Tajik civil war offered some optimism for the future of that state. Turkmenistan The formal name for Turkmenistan is the Republic of Turkmenistan, which is the successor to the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic. Figures from 2004 indicated a population in Turkmenistan of 7,011,556. Muslims account for 85 percent of the population in Turkmenistan, which is 186,400 square miles in area. The capital city is Ashgabat, and Turkmenistan is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the north and east, and Iran and Afghanistan to the south. The Caspian Sea lies to the west. The Turkmen landmass is dominated by the Kara Kum Desert, also referred to as the Black Sand Desert. The Kara Kum Canal is the largest irrigation and shipping canal in the world. Approximately three-fourths of all citizens of Turkmenistan are Turkmen, with the next-largest ethnic groups being Uzbek, at about 9 percent, and Russian, at 6.7 percent. Since independence, a significant problem has been the flight of Russians. Although loyal to the Soviet Union, the Turkmen Supreme Soviet declared sovereignty in August 1990. Saparmurat Niyazov, first secretary of the Turkmen Communist Party, was elected to the office of president in October 1990. After the coup attempt on Gorbachev, in 1991, Niyazov declared Turkmen independence and scheduled a referendum for October 26. In the referendum 94 percent favored independence. The next day Niyazov made independence Central Asia after 1991 85 official and seized all assets of the Soviet Communist Party. The Turkmen Communist Party was renamed the Turkmen Democratic Party and elected Niyazov as chair. Niyazov served as president until late December 2006. Turkmen foreign policy is based upon a number of bilateral agreements and does not allow multilateral agreements. In terms of domestic policy, Niyazov engaged in a strategy to enhance the Turkmen culture. He adopted the name the Great Turkmenbashi and claimed a “monopoly on wisdom.” Attempts to isolate Turkmenistan included the banning of opera, the closing of concert halls and the circus, ending the Academy of Sciences, and institution of Turkmen-only language laws. In addition, Turkmenistan had no recognized opposition parties. A referendum held in January 1994 on whether Niyazov’s term should be extended to 2002 resulted in a reported 1,959,408 for, 212 against, and 13 spoiled ballots. In November 2002, however, Niyazov survived an assassination attempt. In 2003 Niyazov constructed penal colonies in the Karakum desert in an effort to, according to Niyazov, make society healthier by cleansing society. Niyazov died in late December 2006 and was succeeded by Deputy Prime Minister Gurbungali Berdymukhamedov. Initial elections were held in December 1994. During the legislative elections, no opposition party was able to meet the standards required for registration. Hence the vast majority of the 1994 victors were all members of the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan—and ran unopposed. In December 1999 parliamentary elections were held once again. This time 102 candidates competed for 50 seats. Again—other than a few scattered independents— the candidates were almost exclusively members of the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan. In 2002 the former chair of the Turkmen Central Bank, Hudaiberdi Orazov, joined the anti-Niyazov forces. Orazov was fired as deputy prime minister in 2000. Characterizing himself as a reformer, Orazov lost some credibility when he was charged with embezzling money from the Turkmen government. Orazov later admitted partially to the charges and even returned $100,000 in funds. All three major political opponents ended up living in Moscow. Niyazov followed with a purge of the National Security Committee in March 2002. Defense Minister Kurbandurdy Begendjev was also fired, as were a number of other high-ranking officials on the National Security Committee. A month later, in May 2002, the former head of the National Security Committee and 21 of his subordinates were accused of a number of crimes that included murder, hiring prostitutes, accepting bribes, and corruption. Also charged with corruption was ex-defense minister Begendjev. The trials proceeded very rapidly and led to long prison sentences. Purges also led to the dismissals of the chair of the National Bank, the head of the country’s main television outlet, the chair of the Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting, and the rector of the Institute of Culture. Perhaps one of the most mysterious developments in Turkmenistan’s politics was the attempted assassination of Niyazov on November 25, 2002. A number of conflicting accounts emerged, but what they all shared was that an armed attempt was made on Niyavoz and that his car escaped untouched. Some political opponents accused Niyazov of masterminding the attack himself in some sort of effort to enhance his political position both domestically and internationally. Niyazov used the attack as an excuse to crack down on the opposition again. The assassination attempt was followed by the arrests of hundreds—including a number of foreign citizens. Niyazov raided the Uzbek embassy and accused them of harboring assassination conspirators, and then expelled the Uzbek ambassador. Somewhat ironically, regime opponent and former foreign minister Boris Shikhmuradov was arrested several days before the assassination attempt while attempting to secretly enter Turkmenistan from Uzbekistan. Shikhmuradov was sentenced to life in prison. In early 2003 Niyazov was pursuing law enforcement and security officials because of the assassination attempt. Turkmenistan utilized the Soviet-era government system until December 1994. At that point Turkmenistan created a new system in which the president is the head of state and head of government. The legislative arm of Turkmenistan is the Majlis and consists of 50 members elected for a five-year term. Niyazov dominated the legislative branch. The Turkmen system also includes constitutional and supreme courts. The constitution of Turkmenistan also calls for a body called the Khalk Maslakhaty (People’s Supreme Council). The People’s Supreme Council is the country’s supreme consultation body. Theoretically, the People’s Supreme Council is to meet annually, but it met for the first time in three years in August 2002. The council includes cabinet members, local executive bodies, judges, and members of some nongovernmental organizations. At the 2003 annual meeting the Khalk Maslakhaty took over many of the functions previously entrusted to the Majlis. Economically, Niyazov spoke in favor of private property. In December 1996 Niyazov began a program 86 Central Asia after 1991 of leasing that allowed farmers to receive land from state farms free of rent for a period of 15 years. Cotton is a leading agricultural product, but grain is also produced. Industry in Turkmenistan is limited mainly to extractive ventures and, specifically, oil and gas. Turkmenistan has the third-largest natural gas reserves in the world, and its Caspian Sea oil deposits are topped only by those in Kazakhstan. Foreign investment, in large part due to the nature of Niyazov’s regime, has been very slow. Major markets for Turkmen gas now include western Europe, Russia, Ukraine, and Iran. The growth of Turkmenistan has been slow and painful. Energy sales provided needed funds, but these funds were almost all spent by Niyazov in efforts to enhance his own cult of personality. Ultimately, Turkmenistan’s future was clouded by the possibilities of political instability, made even more cogent with the death of Niyazov on December 21, 2006. In February 2007 Gurbungali Berdymukhamedov was elected president. Uzbekistan Officially the Republic of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan is the former Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic and is the most populated of all the Central Asian states. Uzbekistan celebrated its independence on September 1, 1991. Tashkent is the capital city of Uzbekistan. Figures from 2004 showed an Uzbek population of 26,410,416. Approximately 88 percent of all Uzbeks are Muslim. In terms of area, Uzbekistan is 186,400 square miles, which makes it about the size of California. Uzbekistan is bordered by Kazakhstan on the west and south, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to the east, Afghanistan to the south, and Turkmenistan to the south and west. Principal languages are both Uzbek and Russian. Uzbeks make up about 80 percent of the total population and are followed by Russians (5.5 percent) and Tajik (5 percent). Geographically, Uzbekistan boasts parts of the Amu Dar’ya River Valley and the Kysyl-Kum Desert. In eastern Uzbekistan the landscape includes the Tien Shan Mountain Range and the politically significant Fergana Valley. Uzbekistan also borders the environmentally troubled Aral Sea. Since 1936 Uzbekistan has also included the Kara-Kalpakia Autonomous Republic. Approximately 1.2 million people live in the Kara- Kalpakia Region. Uzbekistan’s Soviet era was most notable for its impact on regional agriculture. During the 1950s the Soviets completed large irrigation projects that transformed present-day Uzbekistan into a large cotton producer. During the Soviet era, the Communist Party controlled the politics of Uzbekistan. However, with Gorbachev’s perestroika came a nascent nationalist movement. In June 1990 the Uzbek Supreme Soviet passed a resolution of sovereignty. After the failed coup of 1991 against Gorbachev, the leader of the Uzbek Communist Party, Islam Karimov, remained silent until it was clear the putsch would be defeated. Then Karimov condemned the coup and quickly acted to ban the Communist Party in the police and the armed forces. In August of that same year, Uzbekistan declared independence. By September, Karimov had changed the Uzbek Communist Party to the People’s Democratic Party. Upon independence Karimov began to utilize a strategy of nationalism. Under Karimov’s direction, the Uzbek Supreme Soviet called for elections for December 29, 1991. Although opposition political parties were allowed, they were not permitted to act freely. In fact, Birlik, a popular opposition party, was not permitted to field a candidate for the December elections. Uzbek authorities banned the Islamic Renaissance Movement, which called for the formation of an Islamic state. Only the Erk Democratic Party provided an opposition candidate to Karimov. In the December elections, Karimov won 86 percent of the vote and the Erk candidate 12.4 percent. Soon after the election, the Erk Democratic Party was banned, and leadership in the party fled to Turkey. December 1994 brought parliamentary elections to Uzbekistan. The recently amended constitution called for 250 deputies—in place of the 500 formerly seated. Political opposition was not permitted. The two main political parties were the ruling People’s Democratic Party, which won 205 seats, and the governmentcreated National Progress Party, which won six seats. Presidential elections scheduled for 1996 were postponed until 2000 with a 1995 referendum. Karimov won another five-year term in January 2000 with 91.9 percent of the popular vote. The only other option for voters was Karimov’s hand-selected opposition, Abdulhafiz Dzhalalov. Dzhalalov headed the People’s Democratic Party—the party Karimov ran until 1996. Another referendum followed in January 2002 and delayed the scheduled 2005 elections until 2007. A critical issue facing Uzbekistan is militant Islam. In his first few years in office, Karimov encouraged Islam. However, a 1997 attack on four policemen in the city of Namangan placed the Karimov regime on notice that radical Islam might be a potential problem. The Islamic threat became even more pronounced following a February 1999 assassination attempt on Karimov. On the way to a cabinet meeting, Karimov’s Central Asia after 1991 87 motorcade was attacked. Although the president was uninjured, 16 were killed and 80 others wounded. The government immediately placed blame on Islamic extremism. Observers of the Uzbek government claimed that the Islamic threat was one that was exaggerated by Karimov in order to rationalize further crackdowns on Islam. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Islam Karimov was one of the first to offer his country’s support. Uzbekistan ultimately offered use of its airspace and modern air bases and allowed the United States limited basing privileges. For its part, the United States served Uzbek interests with its attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Islamic militants launched a number of suicide bombings in Tashkent from March 28, 2004, to April 1, 2004. Security officials claim that the attackers were trained in Pakistan and had links to al-Qaeda. In addition, wider attacks were most certainly planned, as law enforcement seized 50 suicide belts from one Uzbek woman. Government figures claim that the attacks resulted in the death of 47, including 10 policemen and 33 militants. Initially the government blamed the Hizb ut-Tahrir. Soon after, a theory emerged that the attacks were the result of a resurgent IMU. Law enforcement officials finally settled on the arrest of members of Jamoat, which translates into “community.” Jamoat is believed to be the remnants of IMU cadres. In July 2004 further attacks commenced against the Israeli and U.S. embassies and the Uzbek General Prosecutor’s Office. The relationship between Uzbekistan and the United States certainly was strained in May 2005. During that month Uzbekistan is said to have massacred demonstrators in the Fergana town of Andijhan. Karimov claimed that the uprising was a result of the United States’s and nongovernmental organizations’ attempts to replicate the successful revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. By July 2005 Karimov served notice that the United States should cease operations at the Uzbek air base at Karshi-Khanabad within 180 days. The government of Uzbekistan is a presidential-parliamentary system, but the president has been dominant since independence. Karimov ruled initially through the Uzbek Communist Party and then changed its name to the People’s Democratic Party. Karimov resigned party leadership in 1996 in order to show a semblance of pluralism. However, all five political parties represented in the Oliy Majlis—the parliament—are from parties created by Karimov. In addition, of the 250 seats in the Oliy Majlis, the largest bloc is reserved for local government representatives. Uzbekistan is heavily reliant on agriculture and, in particular, on the growth of cotton. The majority of its cotton ends up being exported. Uzbek cotton also accounts for two-thirds of all Central Asian cotton, and Uzbekistan is the second-largest exporter of cotton in the world. Most of the food consumed by Uzbeks is produced in the many small farms throughout the country. All Uzbek agriculture is heavily dependent upon the irrigation system, a remnant from the Soviet era. Uzbekistan also boasts large reserves of coal, natural gas, and petroleum. Russia is a large consumer of Uzbek gas. Mining of gold is also a source of income for Uzbekistan. In 2001 gold exports made up 9.6 percent of the Uzbek GDP. Copper, zinc, and lead ores are mined, and uranium is also produced in Uzbekistan. The partnership between Uzbekistan and the United States in the war on terror brought economic relief to Uzbekistan. In November 2001 the United States offered Karimov a $100 million grant in order to make Uzbek currency fully convertible. James Wolfensohn of the World Bank visited Tashkent in April 2002 and offered $350 million to fund infrastructure projects over two years and $40 million to aid in improving water supplies. Yet the economy of Uzbekistan, like those of others in Central Asia, is troubled and operates at levels considerably lower than it did during the Soviet era. See also Soviet Union, dissolution of the. Further reading: Anderson, John. The International Politics of Central Asia. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997; Garnett, Sherman W., Alexander Rahr and Koji Watanabe. The New Central Asia: In Search of Stability. New York: Trilateral Commission, 2000; Library of Congress, Federal Research Division. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan: Country Studies. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1997; Olcott, Martha Brill. Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002; Shoemaker, M. Wesley. Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. 35th ed. Harpers Ferry, WV: Stryker-Post Publications, 2004. Matthew H. Wahlert Chávez, Hugo (1954– ) Venezuelan president and revolutionary Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, president of Venezuela from February 1999 to the present writing in 2008, ranks as one of the most influential and controversial 88 Chávez, Hugo figures in post–cold war Latin America. Distinguished by his left-populist policies, strident anti-imperialism and anti-neoliberalism, promotion of Latin American integration—often bombastic and polarizing rhetoric— and volcanic energy, and the driving force behind Venezuela’s so-called Bolivarian revolution, Chávez elicits strong emotions among both supporters and detractors. A key debate among scholars is whether his “democratic socialism” will lead to a populist dictatorship characteristic of Latin America in the 20th century, or whether his government can pursue a populist social revolution while maintaining the democratic political structures that have endured since the days of Rómulo Betancourt in the late 1950s. Born on July 28, 1954, in the city of Sabaneta (pop. 20,000), capital of the southwestern plains state of Barinas, and of Spanish, Indian, and African ancestry, he was the second son of school teachers, receiving a good education. At age 17 he entered the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences, where he graduated four years later as a sub-lieutenant. He attended Simón Bolívar University in Caracas, sharpening his political views on pan-American nationalism (“Bolivarianism”), socialism, and anti-imperialism. For the next 17 years he served in the military, rising from counterinsurgency paratrooper and platoon commander to lieutenant colonel and instructor at the Venezuelan Military Academy. On July 24, 1983, on the bicentennial of the birth of Simón Bolívar, Chávez and his comrades secretly founded the Bolivarian Revolutionary Army (Ejército Revolucionario Bolivariano, or ERB-200) with the goal of launching a Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. On February 4, 1992, in the midst of widespread popular disaffection for the government of President Carlos Andrés Pérez and his free-market reforms (manifest most dramatically in the massive street protests and riots known as El Caracazo, in February 1989), the ERB launched a failed coup attempt. Appearing on national television, Chávez became an overnight celebrity for his vigorous denunciations of the government’s corruption and cronyism before he and other coup leaders were jailed. Two years later he was released in an amnesty by the government of President Rafael Caldera. Reorganizing the ERB as the Fifth Republic Movement (Movimiento Quinto República, or MQR) and campaigning on his Bolivarian platform, in December 1998 he won the presidency with 56 percent of the popular vote. Once in office, Chávez embarked on a wideranging program of social, economic, and political reforms. In 1999, after seeing many of his initiatives blocked by the National Assembly, he oversaw the writing and promulgation of a new constitution, which granted the executive greater powers and renamed the country the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (República Bolivariana de Venezuela). Reelected in July 2000 to a six-year term, he deepened the reforms of his first months in office. In spring 2002 an opposition movement coalesced demanding his ouster, and between April 11 and April 13, he was briefly removed from office before massive street protests led to his reinstatement. In August 2004 he triumphed decisively in a national referendum intended to recall him, and in December 2006 won a second six-year presidential term with 63 percent of the vote. In a December 2007 referendum, voters rejected Chávez’s proposed changes to Venezuela’s constitution, hurting the momentum of his socialist program. Further reading: Ellner, Steven, and Daniel Hellinger, eds. Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization, and Conflict. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 2004; Gott, Richard. Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. London: Verso, 2005. London: Verso, 2001; ———. In the Shadow of the Liberator: The Impact of Hugo Chávez on Venezuela and Latin America. Michael J. Schroeder Chiang Ching-kuo (1910–1988) Chinese political leader and reformer Chiang Ching-kuo was Chiang Kai-shek’s eldest son. In 1925 he set out to study in the Soviet Union with other young Chinese men and women during a period when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was allied with the Soviet Union and a United Front with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Chiang Chingkuo’s fortunes changed dramatically in 1927 when his father ended the United Front and purged the CCP from the KMT. In retaliation, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin refused to allow Ching-kuo to return to China, although other students were allowed to repatriate. Thus he remained in the Soviet Union, where he worked in various factories and mines and married a Russian woman. Early in 1937 he was suddenly summoned to Moscow and was told by top Soviet officials that he could return to China. The reason was Japan’s Chiang Ching-kuo 89 imminent attack on China and the Soviet realization that if China fell, the Soviet Union would be Japan’s next victim. Chiang Kai-shek immediately began to train his son in government, initially at the county level in regions just behind the battlefront during World War II and then progressively promoting him to bigger tasks both on the mainland and, after the Nationalists lost the civil war to the CCP in 1949, on Taiwan. In 1965 he was appointed minister of defense; later he was appointed vice-premier, and he became premier in 1972, from which post he initiated many important projects that promoted Taiwan’s rapid economic growth while ensuring an equitable distribution of income. Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975 during his fifth term as president of the Republic of China. Vice President Yen Chia-kan served out the remaining years of Chiang Kai-shek’s term and retired. Chiang Ching-kuo was elected president by the National Assembly in 1978 and was reelected for a second sixyear term in 1984. Chiang Ching-kuo’s stay in the Soviet Union made him an opponent of the communist system. His many years as a laborer also gave him a populist outlook. He was an approachable and popular leader. More important, he began political reforms during his second term. He saw the political turmoil against the autocratic regimes of the Philippines and South Korea and understood that the prosperous and educated people of Taiwan yearned for democracy. Thus he initiated overall political reforms that ended martial law and censorship, legalized opposition political parties, and implemented free elections. Finally, with his health failing, he promised that none of his family would succeed him as political leader. After Chiang Ching-kuo’s death, political reforms continued on Taiwan that made it into a democracy, in notable contrast to the communist government of the People’s Republic of China. Although Taiwan’s economic miracle began under Chiang Kai-shek, the credit for its continuation and peaceful political reforms belongs to Chiang Ching-kuo. Further reading: Myers, Ramon H., ed. Two Societies In Opposition: The Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China After Forty Years. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990; Taylor, Jay. The Generalissimo’s Son; Chiang Ching-kuo and the Revolutions in China and Taiwan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur “Chicago Boys” (Chilean economists, 1973–1980s) A group of some 25 like-minded Chilean economists trained mainly at the School of Economy at the Pontifical Catholic University (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) in Santiago, and, steeped in the free-market theories of U.S. economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics, the “Chicago Boys” played a pivotal role in transforming Chile’s economy during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. Chicago School economists were influential throughout much of Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s, a period witnessing the growing influence of neoliberalism as espoused by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other U.S.-dominated transnational financial institutions. The Chicago Boys, like the IMF, decried the fiscal excesses of populist and socialist governments and promoted open markets, privatization of state-owned industries, reduced government expenditures, deregulation, limiting the rights and bargaining power of labor unions, and increased foreign investment as ways to promote economic growth and national development. These years saw similar developments in the United States and Europe, personified in U.S. president Ronald Reagan and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Among the most influential of the Chicago Boys were Jorge Cauas, minister of finance (MF), 1975–77; Sergio de Castro (MF), 1977–82; Pablo Baraona, minister of economy (ME), 1976–79; Roberto Kelly, ME, 1978–79; José Piñera, minister of labor and pensions, 1978–80, and minister of mining, 1980–81; Álvaro Bardón, ME, 1982–83; Hernán Büchi, MF, 1985–89; Juan Carlos Méndez, Budget Director (BD), 1975–81; Emilio Sanfuentes, adviser to Central Bank; Juan Villarzú, BD, 1974–75; and Sergio de la Cuadra, MF, 1982–83. Following their policy prescriptions, the Chilean government under Pinochet privatized social security, pensions, banks, and most state industries; slashed public subsidies and services; and cut taxes, especially for upper-income brackets. Their reforms generated a severe economic contraction and sharply curtailed inflation in the mid-1970s, followed by robust growth in the late 1970s, a deep recession (following a broader global economic downturn) in the early 1980s, and renewed growth in the mid- and late 1980s. The average growth rate from 1973 to 1990 was 3.5 percent, nominally higher than in most Latin American countries. By 1990 the economy was growing rapidly, though economic 90 “Chicago Boys” (Chilean economists, 1973 –1980s) inequality had increased, along with economic hardship among the bottom income brackets, with 44 percent of families living below the poverty line. These and related results of the Chicago Boys’ radical laissez-faire economic restructurings have sparked wide-ranging debates among scholars, while Chileans have continued to grapple with the effects of the free-market reforms. Neoliberalism’s defenders looked to Chile’s privatization of social security as a model for other countries, for example, while its critics pointed to the system’s gaps and insufficient coverage for roughly half of the country’s labor force. In early 2005 all of the candidates in Chile’s presidential campaign agreed that “the country’s much vaunted and much copied privatized pension system needs immediate repair.” Further reading: Borzutzky, Sylvia, and Lois Hecht Oppenheim, eds. After Pinochet: The Chilean Road to Democracy and the Market. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2006; Gill, Indermit S., Truman Packard, and Juan Yermo. Keeping the Promise of Social Security in Latin America. Washington DC: World Bank, 2005; Valdes, Juan Gabriel. Pinochet’s Economists: The Chicago School of Economics in Chile. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Michael J. Schroeder China, human rights and dissidents in In 1949 the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) established the People’s Republic of China (PRC), a totalitarian regime. Although the CCP denied human rights, as understood in the West, to all its citizens, it had a particularly hostile relationship with the intellectuals, whom it distrusted. The repression was especially severe during Mao Zedong’s (Mao Tse-tung’s) rule. Mao died in 1976 and bequeathed a bankrupt nation to his successor, Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-p’ing). Deng sought to pull China out of its economic disaster by reforms called the “Four Modernizations”—of agriculture, industry, science, and defense. He also somewhat relaxed intellectual controls in 1978 by allowing a Democracy Wall in the capital city Beijing (Peking), where citizens could air their grievances. Deng was surprised by the extent and bitterness of the complaints and stunned by an article posted by a young man named Wei Jingsheng entitled “The Fifth Modernization: Democracy.” Wei (born 1950) was the son of committed communist parents and had lived a privileged life in Beijing. His travels during the Cultural Revolution exposed him to the horrors and inequities of a regime that condemned millions to death by man-made famines and that denied justice to ordinary people. His article argued that the Four Modernizations were not enough without a fifth—democracy. For this he was arrested, convicted of “counterrevolution” in a show trial, and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. He became China’s most famous political prisoner. Wei was released in 1993, one-anda- half years short of serving his full term—not because the regime had come to accept international standards of human rights but because it wanted to host the 2000 Olympics in Beijing. He was rearrested and sentenced to another long jail term in 1994 for speaking out for human rights, but was released in 1997 and exiled to the United States. Countless other Chinese were tortured, imprisoned, and killed for seeking religious freedom or for other perceived offenses against the Communist Party. One was Harry Wu (born 1937), who began to suffer severe persecution as a college student. After becoming a U.S. citizen, Wu worked to expose the Chinese government practice of imprisoning political dissenters in brutal labor camps and selling their products and the organs of the prisoners to the United States and other nations. Two world-famous victims were intellectual leaders Fang Lizhi (Fang Li-tzu, born 1936) and Liu Binyan (Liu Ping-yen, born 1925). Fang was China’s leading astrophysicist and vice president of the prestigious Chinese University of Science and Technology. For supporting students’ demands for genuine elections, for advocating democracy and intellectual freedom, and for demanding that Wei Jingsheng be released, he was dismissed from his positions in 1987 and expelled from the CCP. When President George H. W. Bush invited Fang and his wife to a state dinner that he hosted during a visit to China in 1989, the Chinese leaders sent police to prevent them from attending. Liu Binyan was a famous literary figure and also an investigative reporter for the newspaper the People’s Daily. For exposing the massive abuses of power by the CCP, he was dismissed from the party. Their fame protected Fang and Liu from arrest, but both were exiled—to Great Britain and the United States, respectively. Among the four, Wei, Fang, and Liu began as committed communists and later became determined opponents of communism. Wei and Wu suffered long and harsh imprisonment. Millions of other Chinese, named and unnamed, continued to suffer the denial of their human rights. China, human rights and dissidents in 91 See also Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976); Hundred Flowers Campaign in China (1956–1957). Further reading: Binyan, Liu. “Tell the World” What Happened in China and Why. Translated by Henry L. Epstein. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989; Salisbury, Harrison E. The New Emperors: China in the Era of Mao and Deng. Boston: Little, Brown, 1992; Wei Jingsheng. The Courage to Stand Alone. New York: Penguin, USA, 1997; Wu, Harry, with George Vecsey. Troublemaker, One Man’s Crusade against China’s Cruelty. New York: Time Books, 1996. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur China, People’s Republic of On October 1, 1949, the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) upon victory over the Kuomintang in a civil war. Beijing (Peking) became the capital of the new government. Since then, the CCP has ruled China as a one-party state, although several minor political parties were allowed to exist. The PRC aligned itself with the Soviet Union in foreign policy, signing a treaty of alliance and mutual aid in 1950 under which China received loans and technical help from the Soviet Union. The Beijing- Moscow axis began to crack toward the end of the 1950s because of multiple reasons; by the mid-1960s border conflicts had broken out between them. To counterbalance the Soviet threat, China began a rapprochement with the United States that culminated in a visit by President Richard Nixon to China in 1972 and the establishment of full diplomatic relations between China and the United States in 1979. The PRC also joined the United Nations in 1971 as a permanent member of the Security Council, replacing the Republic of China (ROC), or Taiwan. Since the 1970s the PRC has replaced the ROC in most international organizations. Upon its establishment, the CCP immediately undertook violent land reform, killing millions of landlords and redistributing land to the cultivators. However, the peasants were forced to give up their newly acquired land in 1953 to join collective farms under the First Five-Year Plan, copied from that of the Soviet Union. Collective farming continued in varied formats until Mao’s death in 1976. Due to China’s failing economy and the severe distress of the farming population, Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-p’ing), dismantled the collective farms and allowed individual farmers to work private plots, although the state continued to own the land. Productivity and the standard of living among farmers increased dramatically as a result. With the adoption of private enterprise in most industries, however, the standard of living of Chinese farmers lagged far behind that of people in the rapidly expanding urban sector, especially in the advanced coastal provinces. China underwent catastrophic political and economic turmoil under Mao’s radical leadership, most notably during the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping was, by contrast to Mao, pragmatic in dealing with the economy, but he brooked no political opposition, as the bloody repression of student protesters in the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 demonstrated. After Deng ousted several putative successors who failed to conform to his ideas, the succession among CCP leaders was peaceful. In 2002 Hu Jintao became chairman of the CCP and president of China. In 2005 China had an estimated population of 1.3 billion people; the largest military in the world, comprising 2.25 million soldiers; and the third-largest and fastest-growing economy in the world. See also Hundred Flowers Campaign in China (1956–1957); Sino-Soviet Treaty (1950). Further reading: MacFarquhar, Roderick, and John K. Fairbank, eds. Cambridge History of China, The People’s Republic, Part 1: The Emergence of Revolutionary China, 1946–1949, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987; ———. Cambridge History of China, The People’s Republic, Vol. 15, The People’s Republic of China, Part 2: Revolutions Within the Chinese Revolution, 1966–1978. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Salisbury, Harrison E. The New Emperors: China in the Era of Mao and Deng. Boston: Little, Brown, 1992. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Chinese-Vietnamese conflict For over 2,000 years China directly or indirectly ruled Vietnam until 1885. The close relationship between the two peoples led to the sinicizing of Vietnamese society. After the end of World War II and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the example 92 China, People’s Republic of of the Chinese revolution persuaded many Vietnamese that they could liberate their country with similar political goals. During the subsequent wars against the French and the Americans, Communist North Vietnam received material as well as political support from China. Some among the Chinese leadership felt that the Vietnamese had been insufficiently grateful for the aid they had received. Assistance from China and other Communist-bloc countries contributed to Communist North Vietnam’s victory over South Vietnam in 1975. Unified Vietnam became the dominant power in Indochina. In 1979 Vietnamese troops entered Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge regime in that country. China viewed this as an example of Vietnamese expansionism. China also resented Vietnam’s ill treatment of ethnic Chinese residents in the country, and Vietnam’s closeness to the Soviet Union, China’s rival for leadership in the Communist bloc. Thus the Chinese army (the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA) attacked Vietnam in February 1979. Caught by surprise, the Vietnamese army lost ground, and the PLA successfully achieved the first part of its plan, which was to capture the provincial towns of Cao Bang and Lao Cai and then advance on Lang Son. About 250,000 Chinese troops were deployed, together with militia, the air force, and a naval detachment, to the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in the event of Soviet intervention to aid Vietnam. All of the fighting took place in the forested mountainous region that marks the border. Eventually the battlehardened Vietnamese regrouped against the advance of the PLA. The Soviet Union declined to respond to Vietnamese requests for aid. After a limited advance China declared that it had punished Vietnam and withdrew. It threatened to return, however, should Vietnam’s actions warrant further punishment. This showed that Communist nations harbored historic resentments against one another: Vietnam’s territorial ambition in Southeast Asia, and China’s attitude toward small states in areas of its historic influence. The conflict put Vietnam firmly in the Soviet camp until the end of the cold war. The fighting continued at a low level along the border. Further reading: Womack, Brantly. China and Vietnam: The Politics of Asymmetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; Zhang, Xiaoming. “China’s 1979 War with Vietnam: A Reassessment.” China Quarterly (December 2005). John Walsh Civil Rights movement, U.S. When Harry Truman assumed the presidency after the death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, he had more important concerns than civil rights. His first priority was finishing the wars in Europe and the Far East. He also confronted the decision over whether or not to use the atomic bomb. The end of World War II saw the onset of the cold war. Still, in 1945 and 1946, civil rights was not totally forgotten. In 1945 the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC)—established by Roosevelt through executive order under pressure from A. Philip Randolph’s threatened March on Washington—was involved in trying to end discrimination in a Washington, D.C., transportation company. Truman was unable to convince Congress to finance the FEPC. He did, however, establish a committee in 1946 to examine violence against African Americans. The committee, stacked with liberals Truman expected would develop a strong to shocking civil rights statement, issued “To Secure These Rights” in October 1947. The report called for the extension of Civil Rights movement, U.S. 93 Chinese vice premier Deng Xiaoping (right) at the White House in 1979, the same year China attacked Vietnam. full citizenship rights to all Americans, regardless of race, color, creed, or national origin. In his State of the Union speeches of 1947 and 1948, Truman called for adoption of the committee’s recommendations. For Truman, it was a matter of justice in a world divided between free and communist states. On July 26, 1948, Truman issued Executive Order 9981, ending segregation in the armed forces, and Executive Order 9980, mandating fair employment in the civil service. After resisting the presidential order for two years, the military began implementing desegregation, but discrimination in the officer corps remained strong, and few blacks served as officers. In the Korean War, many more blacks served in combat in integrated units than had served in World War II. A further executive order in 1951 established the Committee on Government Contract Compliance (CGCC), which was to require that all potential suppliers of goods to the Department of Defense have an equal employment policy. The CGCC lacked enforcement powers. For many, a major turning point in how African Americans were viewed by the country at large came with the ending of segregation in Major League Baseball in 1947. When he took the field on April 15 for the Brooklyn Dodgers that year, Jackie Robinson became the first African American to play professional Major League Baseball in the modern era. While Robinson endured abuse from fans, other teams, and even his own teammates, he went on to win the first-ever Rookie of the Year award, and over the course of his career, was named to the All-Star team six times. The American scene, however, was changing slowly. Murders and lynchings of African Americans still occurred in the 1950s, and commonly the murders went unpunished. Emmett Till, a teenager from Chicago, was visiting Money, Mississippi, in 1955. Till purportedly whistled at a white woman. For that offense, he was murdered brutally. His mother had an opencasket funeral so the mourners could see the beating the boy had endured before his two white abductors threw him into the Tallahatchie River on August 28. Till’s murderers were quickly arrested and acquitted. This blatant disregard for justice fired northern sentiment for reform. Before 1955 the Civil Rights movement had focused on the courts. Although the approach had won the landmark victory in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Supreme Court had failed to provide any implementation target or tools. Local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapters in the South attempted to register voters and protest discrimination, but their efforts were usually uncoordinated and unsuccessful in the face of intimidation and harassment by local authorities. Rosa Parks further fired the impulse for change. On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, she was arrested for failure to yield her bus seat to white passengers. Her trial and conviction for violating the local segregated transit ordinance catalyzed the local black community. Fifty African-American leaders formed the Montgomery Improvement Association, which led the 381-day Montgomery Bus Boycott that resulted in the repeal of the ordinance. The success in Montgomery was followed by a successful boycott in Tallahassee, Florida, but its greater importance is that it brought national prominence to the minister brought in to lead it, Martin Luther King, Jr. The successful boycott encouraged civil rights leaders to shift from the old civil rights tactic of litigation to a greater emphasis on direct action. Direct action required mass mobilization, led by local churches and community organizations, and nonviolent resistance as well as civil disobedience. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was an early success. Sit-ins, freedom rides, and other local action followed during the decade between 1955 and 1965. After Montgomery, the Montgomery Improvement Association—veteran leaders of the Baton Rouge and Tallahassee boycotts—and other black activists created the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957. The SCLC eschewed the chapter structure of the NAACP, instead providing ad hoc training to those who fought segregation at the local level. In 1957, in the South Carolina Sea Islands, Septima Clark, Bernice Robinson, and Esau Jenkins began the first Citizenship Schools to give blacks the literacy they needed to pass voting tests. The number of eligible voters on St. John Island tripled. The SCLC took over the program and spread it to Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. That same year, the Little Rock, Arkansas, school board decided to integrate in accordance with Brown. The NAACP had put pressure on Little Rock because the civil rights organization thought a test case would have better success there than in the Deep South. Arkansas had desegregated a couple of small towns, including Fayetteville and Hoxie, and it had a progressive reputation. It also had a governor with a progressive reputation. Orval Faubus, however, caved in to the conservative wing of the state Democratic Party and called the Arkansas National Guard to prevent deseg94 Civil Rights movement, U.S. regation of the high school. President Eisenhower was committed to preventing the usurpation of a federal power, so Faubus’s resistance in Little Rock led to a federal-state confrontation resulting in the nationalization of the National Guard. Eventually, after Faubus backed off and then shut down the schools, integration was pushed through. The sit-in movement began in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960 and spread to Nashville, Tennessee; Atlanta, Georgia; and elsewhere in the South—as well as to the North and West. The initial spark was the decision of local college students to eat where they shopped. Complying with local law, counter personnel refused to serve them. The demonstrators suffered arrest and physical abuse, but they refused to post bail so that the local jails would feel the financial burden. When released from jail, civil rights activists returned to the lunch counters again and again until finally the counters desegregated. Sit-ins spread from lunch counters to beaches, libraries, and everywhere that blacks were denied access on account of race. Some sit-in veterans created the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1960. SNCC began freedom rides in 1961, which were bus trips through the Deep South to force desegregation of bus terminals as required by federal law. The riders faced a bus bombing in Anniston, Alabama; an attack by Klansmen in Birmingham; and a mob assault in Montgomery. There were injuries—some serious—but the riders persisted. In Jackson, Mississippi, they were jailed in squalor—and occasionally beaten. Other riders had to do forced labor in 100-degree heat. Some ended up in Parchman Penitentiary. In 1962 the movement shifted to Mississippi, where the SNCC representative, Robert Moses, united all the state civil rights organizations into the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) for the purpose of doorto- door voter education and student recruitment. While the COFO effort was underway, James Meredith won the legal right to attend the University of Mississippi. Three times he tried to enter, and three times Governor Ross R. Barnett refused him. The Fifth Circuit Court of Civil Rights movement, U.S. 95 A group of African Americans march on Washington, D.C., in 1963 in protest against discrimination, for equal rights, and for an end to segregation. Martin Luther King, Jr., influenced such marches with his policy of nonviolent protest. Appeals found Barnett and his lieutenant governor in contempt, and U.S. marshals escorted Meredith onto the campus. White riots ensued. Two people died, 28 marshals were shot, and 160 others were injured. The Mississippi highway patrol withdrew from the campus, so President John F. Kennedy sent the army to control the campus and allow Meredith to attend classes. In 1961 and 1962 King went to Albany, Georgia, to assist in the Albany Movement, which aimed at ending segregation in all phases of the city. The police in Albany reacted not with violence but with mass arrests, including King in December 1961. City leaders came to an agreement with local prominent African Americans: If King left Albany, the city would—among other things—desegregate the buses and set up a biracial committee. King left, and the city did not fulfill its promises, forcing King’s return. He was arrested again in July 1962, and in August agreed to leave the city and stop the protests. He blamed the failure of the Albany Movement on its broad scope rather than a specific aspect of segregation and discrimination. With Albany dogging him, King needed a victory. He went to Birmingham in 1963 with the Albany lessons in mind. Rather than total desegregation, the SCLC sought a more limited desegregation of downtown businesses. The local commissioner of public safety was Eugene “Bull” Connor. The SCLC used sit-ins, kneel-ins, marches, and other nonviolent techniques. The city obtained an injunction, the SCLC refused to quit, and King and others were arrested on April 12, 1963. King wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” on April 16, but the campaign was faltering until organizers, desperate for bodies, decided to put high school students on the streets. On May 2, over 1,000 students demonstrated, and over 600 ended up in jail. The next day another 1,000 students appeared, and Connor ordered dogs and fire hoses to be turned on them. Television covered it all. Kennedy forced the SCLC and local businesses to reach a settlement. On May 10 they agreed: Downtown public accommodations were to be desegregated and a committee established to end discrimination in hiring. Also, the prisoners were released, and black-white communications channels were established. Four months later, Klansmen bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, killing four girls. The summer of 1963 saw George Wallace’s attempt to prevent desegregation of the University of Alabama and Kennedy’s sending sufficient force to enroll two students. The evening that the University of Alabama desegregated, on June 11, Kennedy made a major civil rights address on television and radio. The next day Medgar Evers, who had fought to desegregate the University of Mississippi law school, was murdered. On June 19, Kennedy submitted his long-awaited Civil Rights Bill. In August A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin led the March on Washington—from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial—despite Kennedy’s efforts to get them to call the march off. All the major civil rights and progressive labor organizations were involved, as were other liberal leaders. The demands were “meaningful civil rights laws, a massive federal works program, full and fair employment, decent housing, the right to vote, and adequate integrated education.” Most important was the new civil rights law, which was stalled in Congress. More than 200,000 gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial to hear King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and other speeches criticizing the administration’s failure to enact civil rights laws and to protect southern civil rights workers. After the march, Kennedy had King and other leaders over to the White House for a chat. political weight The Civil Rights Bill was going nowhere until Kennedy died on November 22, 1963, and Lyndon B. Johnson put all his political weight (and Kennedy’s martyrdom) behind its passage. In 1964 COFO continued its dangerous work in Mississippi. “Freedom Summer” involved locals and northern students in voter registration and voter education (Freedom Schools), and the organization of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). Three civil rights workers were murdered in Neshoba County on June 21, 1964. An FBI investigation found not only the three bodies but also others of blacks who had disappeared over the years without attracting more than local attention. During the six weeks between the disappearance of the three and the discovery of their bodies, Johnson used the case to bring pressure for enactment of the Civil Rights Act, which passed on July 2. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and education. At Selma, Alabama, the SCLC intervened in 1965 after locals struggled to get voters registered through a SNCC campaign. Hosea Williams of the SCLC and John Lewis of the SNCC attempted to lead a march to Montgomery, but they were stopped at the Edmund Pettus Bridge by state and local officers, who attacked with clubs, tear gas, and whips. National coverage matched that of the Birmingham children’s campaign. 96 Civil Rights movement, U.S. Local reaction included a murder by whites. Johnson used the violence to push enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Signed into law on August 6, the act outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests and other devices to bar voting by blacks. It provided for federal supervision of voter registration in states and districts with a pattern of discrimination. Within months, a quarter of a million new black voters were created, mostly by federal examiners who replaced local registrars. Voter registration in the South more than doubled in four years. Mississippi’s black turnout in 1965 was 74 percent. Black turnout in 1969 was 92 percent in Tennessee, almost 78 percent in Arkansas, and 73 percent in Texas. Blacks began voting out those who had plagued them during their struggles against segregation. And they began voting in blacks they hoped were more sympathetic to their needs. In 1989 there were 7,200 elected black officials in the United States, more than 4,800 of them in the South. In 1965 about 100 were in elective office in all of the United States. Blacks were sheriffs, mayors, and county, state, and national officials. radicalization Voting rights failed to provide jobs. As the nation turned from civil rights to the war in Vietnam, and as King and other civil rights leaders split with the Johnson administration over foreign policy and the failure of economic justice at home, the Civil Rights movement faded. Blacks radicalized—SNCC threw out its white members, and the Black Panthers stressed not only Black Power but black self-help. Blacks rioted in American cities between 1965 and 1968. When King went to Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968 to support a sanitation workers’ strike, he was murdered. By 1967 22 percent of black students in southern and border states were in integrated schools. Still, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders of 1968 reported that the United States was continuing to move toward a two-society status, separate and unequal. Housing segregation was addressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Richard Nixon’s administration slowed integration by leaving it to the courts rather than his administration. After the Supreme Court ruled in Miliken v. Bradley (1974) that cities could not expect to use suburbs to desegregate, white flight began resegregating America’s major cities. The absence of federal assistance and persistent residential segregation contributed to resegregation. By the late 1990s, a third of black students were in schools that were 90 percent nonwhite. During World War II, many African Americans migrated north, following jobs in war industries, but most of the jobs they were able to get were menial and paid very little. This created greater racial problems in these northern cities; blacks were forced by de facto segregation into slums that were plagued by high unemployment and crime. Additionally, the slum areas were patrolled by predominantly white police forces who many felt threatened rather than protected the neighborhood. The area schools tended to be all black and terribly underfunded. Frustrated by these conditions, urban African Americans rose in protest. The first riot was in Harlem in the summer of 1964. A white policeman shot a black youth, and a mob demanded the suspension of the officer. When that did not happen, the mob rampaged through the neighborhood and destroyed Jewish-owned stores and much else that was not black-owned. Brooklyn’s black Bedford- Stuyvesant neighborhood and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, had riots for similar reasons that year. After passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, expectations were that there would be celebration. Instead there was violence. California was among the states that refused to implement the fair housing element of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 required fair housing. Malcolm X was killed in 1965. The black ghetto riots were the most prolonged period of civil disturbance in the United States since the Civil War. Tens of thousands of National Guardsmen were required to reestablish order. Blacks began taking out their frustrations on police by murdering racist and brutal “honkies” and “pigs.” In 1966 nearly all major U.S. cities endured riots by blacks taking an independent “black power” stance, no longer following the white-black integrated approach of the NAACP and SCLC. Black power was the slogan of Stokely Carmichael, leader of the SNCC. Its approach was similar to that of the Black Panthers, formed in Oakland in 1966 and nationally prominent by 1968. Racial stereotyping and simple personal racism remains. Interracial tension and social problems remain, which are especially pronounced in the inner cities. Sometimes the cities erupt, as in New Jersey in the late 1990s where racial profiling led to public controversy. And riots do still occur. Note the 1992 riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. Further reading: Dudziak, Mary L. Cold War Civil Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000; Gardner, Michael R. Harry Truman and Civil Rights. Carbondale: Civil Rights movement, U.S. 97 Southern Illinois University Press, 2002; Herman, Max. “The Newark and Detroit Riots of 1967.” http://www.67riots.rut gers.edu/introduction.html (cited February 2006). John H. Barnhill Clinton, Bill (1946– ) and Hillary Rodham (1947– ) U.S. politicians Bill (William Jefferson) Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States, in office from 1993 until 2001. Hillary Clinton was the First Lady during that time, and was a Democratic Party candidate in the 2008 presidential elections. William Jefferson Clinton was born on August 19, 1946, as William Jefferson Blythe III, in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe, Jr., was a traveling salesman who died in a car accident some three months before his son was born. After his death, his widow, Virginia Dell, married Roger Clinton, who was a partner in an automobile dealership, and when he was 14, Bill adopted his stepfather’s surname. It was meeting John F. Kennedy and listening to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s I “Have a Dream” speech in 1963 that convinced him that he should enter politics. Bill Clinton went to the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, receiving a bachelor of science in foreign service in 1968. He then was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford University in England. On his return to the United States, Clinton went to Yale Law School, where he met Hillary Rodham. They were married on October 11, 1975, and their only child, Chelsea, was born on February 27, 1980. Hillary Diane Rodham was born on October 26, 1947, at Edgewater Hospital, Chicago, Illinois. She attended Maine South High School and grew up in a conservative Republican family. At the age of 16 she campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Hillary Rodham then went to Wellesley College, where she developed liberal inclinations and graduated in 1969. In 1971 she worked for Senator Walter Mondale’s subcommittee on migrant workers and in 1972 started working for Senator George McGovern’s 1972 presidential election campaign. The Clintons returned to Arkansas after completing their studies at Yale, and Bill became a law professor at the University of Arkansas. In the following year, 1974, he ran for the House of Representatives but was defeated. In 1976 Clinton was elected attorney general of Arkansas without opposition. Two years later he was elected governor of Arkansas and, at the age of 32, was the youngest governor in the country. He spent his first term as governor working on improving schools and roads, but became unpopular over the motor vehicle tax and the escape of Cuban prisoners. In 1980 Republican Frank D. White defeated Clinton. However, in 1982 Clinton was reelected as governor and remained in office until 1992. He used these 10 years to transform Arkansas by dramatically improving the education system and introducing welfare reforms. By 1988 Clinton was being suggested as a possible presidential candidate, given his high profile in American liberal circles. He decided not to run, although he did speak at the Democratic National Convention, gaining a much wider national profile. Following the defeat of the Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis in the 1988 elections, some Democratic Party organizers felt that Clinton should run in 1992. In that election it was thought that the incumbent George H. W. Bush would win easily because of his recent victory in the Gulf War. Clinton managed a major victory in the New York primaries, and even defeated California governor Jerry Brown in his home state. The result was that Clinton easily won the Democratic Party primaries. In 1994 the Democratic Party lost control of Congress at the midterm elections, the first time in 40 years they lost control of both houses. It was the start of a bitter battle between Clinton and his new adversary Newt Gingrich. Despite losing control of Congress to the Republican Party in the middle of his first term, in 1996 Clinton easily won the presidential election, 98 Clinton, Bill (1946 – ) and Hillary Rodham (1947 – ) Despite his popularity, Bill Clinton’s second term in the White House was beset by scandal (with wife, Hillary, at right). becoming the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to be reelected. Clinton’s second term in office was preoccupied, on the foreign policy front, by his attempts to resolve the Arab- Israeli conflict. In July 2000 Clinton brought both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasir Arafat to Camp David, but the negotiations failed. On the economic front, Clinton managed to balance the federal budget for the first time since 1969. His second term in office was overshadowed by the controversy over Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton stood by her husband throughout the crisis. The Republicancontrolled House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton for lying under oath in his denial of the affair, but the Senate voted to acquit Clinton, and he remained in office until the end of his term, which he ended with a popularity approval rating of 65 percent. The result of the Monica Lewinsky affair was that Bill Clinton had to abandon his plans for reforms of the health-care system, which had been heavily supported by his wife. Throughout his presidency, Bill Clinton did much to improve the life of African Americans, who became some of his most loyal supporters. Certainly Clinton saw as one of his major successes the implementation of majority rule in South Africa, with the election of the Nelson Mandela government after a peaceful transition of power. Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, was also able to engage with North Korea and reduce tensions in Northeast Asia. After completing his second term as president, Bill Clinton opened his office in the Harlem district of New York, showing his affinity for African Americans, and helped Hillary Clinton when she campaigned for a Senate seat for New York State. Since then, Bill Clinton has been active in campaigning for measures to prevent climate change, speaking at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Canada, on December 9, 2005, in which he was critical of the Bush administration. Through the William J. Clinton Foundation, he has also raised money for HIV/AIDS research through the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI). Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate on November 7, 2000, winning 55 percent of the vote to 43 percent for her Republican opponent, Rick Lazio. During her time as First Lady, many Americans openly hated Hillary Clinton, with large numbers of Internet hate sites being established. However, her election victory proved that she was popular in her own right. She not only won in the traditionally Democratic Party base of New York City by a large majority, but she also carried suburban Westchester County and even did well in Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, with Lazio winning in his home-base area of Long Island. In the Senate, initially Hillary Clinton took a low profile. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Hillary Clinton was active in gaining funding for rebuilding projects. Hillary Clinton urged for the United States to take strong military action against Afghanistan, also highlighting the ill-treatment of women in that country by the Taliban. She voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, but subsequently came to disagree with the prosecution of the war in Iraq. On domestic issues, Hillary Clinton followed the same liberal traditions that had characterized her husband’s presidency. On January 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton announced that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee to run as a candidate in the 2008 presidential elections and later officially pursued her electoral bid. See also presidential impeachment, u.s. Further reading: Blumenthal, Sidney. The Clinton Wars. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003; Clinton, Bill. My Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004; Clinton, Hillary Rodham. Living History. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003; Harris, John F. The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House. New York: Random House, 2005; Hyland, William G. Clinton’s World: Remaking American Foreign Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999; Landau, Elaine. Bill Clinton. New York: Franklin Watts, 1993. Justin Corfield cold war The cold war was the decade-long conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, especially characterized by its constant tensions, arms escalation, and lack of direct warfare. First coined by author George Orwell to describe a state of permanent and unresolvable war, cold war was applied to the U.S.-Soviet conflict in 1947 by Bernard Baruch, the U.S. representative to the UN Atomic Energy Commission and influential adviser to both Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Both sides often phrased the conflict as one between capitalism and communism, not simply between two states. Picking its endpoints requires some arbitrary choices, but it essentially lasted from shortly after World War II to the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union. cold war 99 Long before even the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, there were significant differences between Russia and the West—Russia was a latecomer to capitalism, abolishing serfdom only in 1861—and the transition was an awkward one that created enough ill will to make a radical revolution appealing. Before the 20th century, Russia’s imperial designs threatened those of Great Britain—a maritime rival—and Spain, which encouraged settlement in California out of fear that Russian colonists would settle the west coast traveling south from Alaska. In both cases the Western nations may have been exaggerating or misperceiving the extent of Russia’s expansionist interests—just as was likely the case with Western perceptions of the Soviet Union during the cold war. In the 20th century, the old European empires had lost their power, and the most powerful countries were the ideologically opposed Soviet Union and the United States, with its close ally the United Kingdom. These were the two world leaders that developing nations would be shaped by and recovering nations would have to ally themselves with. Given the size and power of the countries—with perhaps as an additional factor the youth of their governments, relative to those of old Europe—some historians consider the conflict inevitable. World War II had broken the faith that the Soviet Union had in the rest of the world’s willingness to leave communist states alone, and so Stalin sought to spread communism to neighboring countries in eastern Europe—Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Poland—but remained uninvolved with communist interests in Finland, Greece, and Czechoslovakia, at least directly. Winston Churchill was the first to refer to this band of communist countries as the “Iron Curtain,” referring not only to the fortified borders between the capitalist and communist nations of Europe but to the Soviet Union’s protective layer of communist states shielding it from capitalist Europe. Meanwhile, communism grew in popularity in China, France, India, Italy, Japan, and Vietnam. Very quickly the West began to perceive communist victories as Soviet victories, and communist nations as Soviet satellites, officially or otherwise. The United Kingdom could no longer afford to govern overseas and in the 1947 partition of India had granted independence to that holding, which led to the formation of the states of India and Pakistan. The United States began increasing its overseas influence as that of the British waned. For the first few decades after World War II, the dominant focus of U.S. foreign policy was that of “containment”; the U.S. took pains to limit communist and Soviet influence to the states where it was already present and to prevent its “leaking out” to others. Many believed that, so contained, communist governments would wither and die—in contrast, the domino theory proclaimed that if one capitalist government fell, its neighbors would be next, a proposition that motivated U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which was proclaimed a war not just over Vietnam but over all of Southeast Asia, which notably included former British and French holdings. When civil war broke out in China, the Soviet Union aided the Communists, and the United States armed and funded the Nationalists. The new People’s Republic of China, formed on October 1, 1949, became a valuable Soviet ally, while the Nationalists took control of the island of Taiwan, from where they retained their seat in the United Nations. The Soviets boycotted the United Nations Security Council as a result, and so were unable to veto Truman’s request for UN aid in prosecuting an attack on the Soviet-supported North Korean forces invading U.S.-supported South Korea. The Korean War that followed lasted three years, ending in a stalemate; into the 21st century no peace treaty had been formed between the two Koreas. As the lines between the two sides became more clearly drawn, 12 nations formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In response to this and the rearmament of West Germany, Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, formed a similar alliance of eastern European states called the Warsaw Pact: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union. eisenhower to reagan From President Eisenhower in the 1950s to President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s the guiding light of military spending was deterrence theory, ensuring that retaliation would be swift and extraordinary. The specter of nuclear warfare dominated U.S. consciousness in these decades. In the 1950s fallout shelters were built in many towns and private homes, and educational film shorts shown in schools included the famous “Duck and Cover,” in which a talking turtle advises children to seek shelter in the event of nuclear war. Many schools and town governments held duck-andcover drills, which likely served no real purpose except to heighten fears. 100 cold war Eisenhower openly worried about the inertia of the military-industrial complex as well as escalating military spending. Perhaps seeking to avoid future military conflicts, he was the first to use the CIA to overthrow governments in developing or less powerful nations that were unfriendly to U.S. policy, replacing them with nominally democratic ones. Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America became more important to the cold war than Europe. In Latin America, the United States had been involved in national politics since the 19th century, but the cold war gave a new lift to foreign policy. As the increasingly powerful lower classes in many Latin American countries gave rise to a strong left wing and socialist concerns, the United States targeted revolutions and instigated coups against left-leaning governments. Fidel Castro led the communist revolution in Cuba, only miles from the U.S. coast. The United States responded by dispatching a group of CIA-trained Cuban expatriates to land at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs and attempt to oust Castro from power. The invasion was a significant failure and provided the Soviets with a further excuse to install nuclear missiles in Cuba—balancing out those the United States had installed in Turkey and western Europe. Only when President Kennedy promised not to invade Cuba and to remove missiles from Turkey—close to the USSR—did the Soviets back down. It is still considered the moment when the two nations came closest to direct warfare. berlin wall In 1961 the Berlin Wall was built and quickly became the most vivid symbol of the cold war: The 28 miles of wall, barbed wire, and minefields separated Soviet-controlled East Berlin from U.S.-supported West Berlin. Passage across the border was heavily restricted. Families were divided, and some East Berliners were no longer able to commute to work. About 200 people died trying to cross into West Berlin; some 5,000 more succeeded. It would be nearly 30 years before the wall came down. By the end of the 1960s the prevalence of deterrence theory had led to a state of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD), in which an attack by either side would result in the destruction of both sides. Theoretically such assurance prevents that first strike, which was the logic behind limiting antiballistic missiles. Talks and, later, agreements on strategic nuclear arms (SALT I and SALT II) began in 1969. President Reagan’s SDI program in the early 1980s would be a significant step away from the MAD model toward the goal of a winnable nuclear war. The word détente—“warming”—is often used to describe the improvements in Soviet-U.S. relations from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, a time when military parity between the two had all but been achieved. Both nations’ economies suffered—the United States from the expense of the Vietnam War, and the Soviets from that of catching up to the United States in the nuclear arms race. In order to encourage Soviet reforms, U.S. president Gerald Ford signed into law the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1975, which tied U.S.-Soviet trade relations to the conditions of Soviet human rights. The Soviets had lost their alliance with China because they had failed to strongly support China during border disputes with India and the invasion of Tibet. The prospect of facing a Chinese-U.S. alliance—however unlikely it may have seemed to Americans—discouraged the Soviets as much as MAD did, and contributed to their willingness to participate in summits such as those that resulted in the Outer Space Treaty, banning the presence of nuclear weapons in space. As they recovered from World War II, western Europe and Japan became more relevant again to the international scene, as did Communist China. Especially from the 1970s on, the U.S.-Soviet domination of international affairs eroded. The United States began to come under more frequent and serious criticism for the choices it had made in its opposition to communism, especially for its support of dictatorial or oppressive right-wing governments. Meanwhile, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, more and more developing nations adopted the policy of nonalignment. The Middle Eastern nations, their influence bolstered by oil and the increasing consumption thereof, became a particular factor, and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which increased oil prices in 1973 by 400 percent, was a leading player in the West’s economic troubles. As more countries joined the United Nations, the Western majority was broken. In 1979 the secular democratic regime of the shah in Iran—supported by the United States and restored in 1953 with the CIA’s help—fell to an alliance of liberal and religious rebels, who installed the religious leader the Ayatollah Khomeini as the new head of state. Outraged at the involvement of the United States in Iranian affairs, a group of Iranian students held 66 Americans hostage for 14 months, until 20 minutes after President Reagan’s inauguration. Détente ended as the 1980s began, with the Iran hostage crisis and the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Hard-line right-wingers had been elected in both the United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher) and the United States (Reagan in 1981), and many neoconservatives characterized the détente of the previous decade as cold war 101 too permissive, and too soft on communism. Just as the United States had come under criticism for its support of certain governments, the Soviets lost a good deal of international respect not only over Afghanistan but also when they shot down a Korean commercial airliner (Korean Air Flight 007, in 1983) that passed into Soviet airspace. The first years of the 1980s saw an escalation in the arms race for the first time since the SALT talks began. The Strategic Defense Initiative, proposed by the Reagan administration in 1983, was a space- and ground-based antimissile defense system that would have completely abandoned the MAD model. Significant work went into it, seeking a winnable nuclear war, unthinkable in previous decades. mikhail gorbachev In 1985 the Soviet Politburo elected reformist Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of a generation who had grown up not under Stalin but under the more reform-minded Khrushchev. Gorbachev was savvy, sharp, and politically aware in a way many Soviet politicians were not. The keystones of his reforms were glasnost and perestroika, policies almost encapsulated by catchphrases widely repeated both in the Soviet Union and in Western newspapers. Glasnost, a policy instituted in 1985, simply meant “openness,” but referred not just to freedom of speech and the press but to making the mechanics of government visible and open to question by the public. Perestroika, which began in 1987, meant “restructuring.” Perestroika consisted of major economic reforms, significant shifts away from pure communism, allowing private ownership of businesses and much wider foreign trade. Two years after the start of perestroika, eastern European communism began to collapse under protests and uprisings, culminating in reformist revolutions in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Several Soviet states sought independence from the Soviet Union, and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania declared independence. The period culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989. After years of public pressure, East Germany finally agreed to lift the restrictions on border traffic for those with proper visas. East Germany had little choice but to abandon the wall. They did nothing to stop the Mauerspechte (“wall chippers”) who arrived with sledgehammers to demolish the wall and claim souvenirs from it, and began the rehabilitation of the roads that the wall’s construction had destroyed. By the end of the year free travel was allowed throughout the city, without need of visas or paperwork. A year later East and West Germany reunified. In 1991 radical communists in the Soviet Union seized power for three days in August, while Gorbachev was on vacation. Boris Yeltsin, the president of Russia, denounced the coup loudly and visibly—standing on a tank and addressing the public with a megaphone. The majority of the military quickly sided with him and the other opponents of the coup, which ended with little violence. But it was clear that the Soviet Union would not last—it was soon dissolved, becoming 15 independent states. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union the cold war was technically over, effective immediately, but a “cold war mentality” continued. The United States continued to involve itself in international affairs in similar ways, sometimes being accused of acting like a world policeman—a role the United Kingdom had enjoyed before the world wars. The apparatus of espionage found new subjects, with the ECHELON system of signals intelligence—monitoring telephone and electronic communication—eventually repurposed for the war on terror following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Contrary to every expectation, the cold war ended without direct warfare and without the use of nuclear weapons. See also Eastern Bloc, collapse of the; Pinochet Ugarte, Augusto. Further reading: Bogle, Lori, ed. Cold War Espionage and Spying. New York: Routledge, 2001; Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin, 2005; Kort, Michael. The Columbia Guide to the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998; Prados, John. Presidents’ Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II. New York: Ivan R. Dee, 1996; Weinstein, Allen, and Alexander Vassiliev. The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America. Oxford: Oxford, 1999. Bill Kte’pi Colombia, La Violencia in (1946–1966) Known simply as “The Violence” (La Violencia), the period of widespread political violence and civil war that wracked Colombia from the mid-1940s to the mid- 1960s (conventionally dated from 1946 to 1966, but also from 1948 to 1958, and 1948 to early 1970s) was rooted in conservative efforts to quell liberal challenges to continuing conservative political dominance, and liberal 102 Colombia, La Violencia in (1946 –1966 ) resistance to the Conservative campaign of persecution and terror. Upwards of 200,000 people were killed from 1948 to 1958, the bloodiest years of The Violence, and perhaps 300,000 people from 1946 to 1966. The longer-term origins of La Violencia can be traced to Colombia’s long history of internecine political conflict, especially its “War of the Thousand Days” (1899–1902) between Liberals and Conservatives, the longest and bloodiest of Latin America’s 19th-century civil wars, in which some 100,000 people were killed, of a population of around 4 million. In the shorter term, La Violencia originated in rising Liberalpopulist challenges to oligarchic liberal-conservative rule spearheaded by liberal dissident Jorge Eliécer Gaitán from the 1930s, and especially from 1946. In that year’s presidential election, the Liberal Party split between the left-leaning populist reformer Gaitán and official candidate Alberto Lleras Camargo, permitting a plurality victory by conservative Mariano Ospina Pérez. In the context of rising popular support for a more open political system, democratic reforms, and more equitable sharing of the nation’s resources, the regime of Ospina Pérez stepped up the persecution of liberals and other moderate elements. Violence exploded after April 9, 1948, when Gaitán, widely considered the leading contender for the 1950 presidential elections, was assassinated in Bogotá. The city exploded in violence against property, with days of pillaging, burning, and political protesting across the length and breadth of the city, in what has come to be known as The Bogotazo (loosely, “the Bogotá Smash”). Liberal insurrections soon spread across much of the country, including provincial capitals and rural areas. Conservative elements responded by launching counterinsurgency actions, which by mid-1948 had crushed most overt resistance. Most Liberals withdrew from the government and refused to participate in the 1950 elections, which brought to power the ultraconservative Laureano Gómez (1950–53). Tensions ran high, as many Liberals continued organizing and mobilizing. With the support of most large landowners, the army and police, the church, conservative peasants, and the United States, the Gómez regime unleashed a reign of terror in city and countryside. The spiraling violence reached into almost every city, town, village, community, and family, with political partisanship at fever pitch and often accompanied by gruesome tortures and murders. Especially hard hit were Andean coffee-growing regions dominated by smallholding peasants—especially Boyacá, Antioquia, the Satanders, Valle del Cauca, and Cauca. Hit squads and assassins (pájaros, or “birds”) were paid handsomely for eliminating targeted enemies, protected by the authorities and dense networks of supporters. In response, guerrilla resistance armies emerged in many areas, often led by lower-class partisans. In 1953 the Gómez regime was ousted in a coup led by General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, who launched a pacification campaign based on amnesty and public works projects. By 1955 the pacification effort had largely failed, and the violence and atrocities continued. In 1958 a national plebiscite brought to power the National Front, a Liberal-Conservative powersharing arrangement that stemmed much of the violence, which continued to simmer in many areas, often in the form of rural banditry. By 1966, with the regime of Liberal Carlos Lleras Restrepo (1966–70), most violence had dissipated. Still, with the emergence of several left-wing guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitary organizations, and in the context of the ballooning marijuana and cocaine trade and skyrocketing U.S. military aid in the “war on drugs,” Colombia remained one of Latin America’s most violent countries into the 21st century. Further reading: Bergquist, Charles, Ricardo Peñaranda, and Gonzalo Sánchez, eds. Violence in Colombia: The Contemporary Crisis in Historical Perspective. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1992; Roldan, Mary. Blood and Fire: La Violencia in Antioquia, Colombia, 1946– 1953. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002. Michael J. Schroeder Comecon The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) was established in January 1949 by the Soviet Union. It was an organization designed to economically unite all the communist states in the eastern bloc of Europe. The founding member nations were the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria. Albania joined in February 1949, the German Democratic Republic in 1950, Yugoslavia in 1956, and Mongolia in 1962. Several other communist states—such as China, North Korea, and North Vietnam—were official Comecon observers. Other countries gained membership or observer status in the Comecon. Council sessions were held regularly, and the leaders of member states usually met at least once each year. Economic policies for all member states were debated and determined at the Comecon 103 council sessions. These policies were then implemented through Comecon directives. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Comecon was formally dissolved in June of that year. The initial charter of the organization stated three main goals to provide broader economic cooperation: “exchanging economic experience,” rendering “technical assistance,” and providing “mutual aid” to all member countries. The original goal of the Comecon was to establish stronger ties and greater cooperation between the command economies of the Soviet Union and the Eastern-bloc states. The Comecon provided Stalin with yet another way to strengthen his control over the eastern European allies by linking their economic vitality, production, and trade directly to the Soviet Union. The early years of the organization provided only modest results, such as bilateral trade agreements and sharing of technology between member states. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev attempted to strengthen the organization by proposing that all member states join a centrally planned socialist commonwealth to be run from Moscow. Smaller member states with lessdeveloped economies and those relying more heavily on agriculture disagreed with this plan for a centralized commonwealth. However, upon his ouster from power in 1964, his attempted centralization of the Comecon and most of his other policies were abandoned. Leonid Brezhnev and the Soviet leadership in the 1960s and 1970s recognized the need for economic acceleration and further industrial and technological development in the Soviet Union and Comecon member countries. The economic and technological gaps between countries in western Europe and those in the Comecon were becoming more evident. Therefore, the Comecon adopted a new plan in 1971 called the Comprehensive Programme for the Further Extension and Improvement of Cooperation and the Development of Socialist Economic Integration. The basic goal of this program was to emphasize long-term planning and investments in industrial development of all member states. The Comecon dissolved in 1991. Throughout its four decades of existence, the organization encountered many problems. The dependence of all member states on the economy of the Soviet Union created an unstable and impractical system. The planned economies of the member states did not rely on normal market forces and prices; therefore, the mechanism created a false and inflated economic situation. When the countries traded and dealt with other states outside of the Comecon, the weakness of their economies became evident. The Comecon never completely fulfilled its objectives because of the difficulties presented when attempting to integrate multiple states’ economies. See also Soviet Union, dissolution, of the. Further reading: Brine, Jenny. COMECON: The Rise and Fall of an International Socialist Organization. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1992; Kaser, Michael. Comecon: Integration Problems of the Planned Economies. London: Oxford University Press, 1967; Metcalf, Lee Kendall. The Council of Mutual Economic Assistance: The Failure of Reform. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Elizabeth C. Charles Commonwealth of Nations The Commonwealth of Nations, formerly the British Commonwealth, is a loose cultural and political alliance of former British Empire territories. The idea of the commonwealth continually evolved after its origins in the mid- to late 19th century. The term referred to the settler colonies: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Newfoundland, and South Africa. But in the 1920s the settler colonies and Britain began to meet in Imperial Conferences, which provided the structure for the later Commonwealth of Nations. The commonwealth shifted from a community of British-populated independent nations to a proposed economic bloc, and finally to a multicultural community of nations. The concept of commonwealth described the unique constitutional relationship between Great Britain and the settler colonies; Parliament and the Foreign Office presided over foreign affairs that involved the colonies, but the colonial parliaments controlled their own internal affairs. In the 1926 Imperial Conference, the Balfour Declaration acknowledged that Britain and the settler dominions were “equal in status” to Britain. After the Statute of Westminster in 1931—which gave the dominions of Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, and Ireland legislative independence—the commonwealth officially became a political organization consisting of the United Kingdom along with its former colonies. The British tried to make the commonwealth work as a large trading bloc, with trade preferences between the former colonies as well as the formal colonies. Britain’s imports and exports to and from the colonies never amounted to more than a third of Britain’s trade. Also, such countries as Australia, New Zealand, and 104 Commonwealth of Nations Canada became more dependent upon the United States for trade, especially after World War II. The sudden decolonization of the British colonies in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s created the foundations for the current commonwealth. India’s decision to stay in the commonwealth in 1949 provided a precedence for later nonsettler colonies to join the commonwealth after independence. In order to keep its political sovereignty while still allowing for cultural ties, India accepted the king of England as the symbolic head of the commonwealth. In 1949, when India accepted the king as the symbolic head of the commonwealth, the British Commonwealth of Nations changed its name to the Commonwealth of Nations, so as not to imply that its peoples were all of British ethnicity. As a number of newly independent countries applied to join the commonwealth after they gained independence, the composition of the commonwealth shifted from a meeting of predominantly white countries to a multicultural organization. At the Heads of Governments Conferences in Singapore in 1971 and in Ottawa in 1973, the general consensus was that the commonwealth should be a loose political association of the former British Empire. The Commonwealth of Nations continued to uphold these principals into the 21st century. As of 2006 Queen Elizabeth II, the queen of England, held the title head of commonwealth. The commonwealth heads of government decide who will be the next commonwealth secretary-general, the official who leads the Commonwealth Secretariat, the decisionmaking body of the Commonwealth of Nations. Every five years the heads of government elect a new secretarygeneral at the Commonwealth Secretariat meeting. Members as of 2006 included Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Further reading: Louis, Wm. Roger. Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. 5: The Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; Mansergh, Nicholas. The Commonwealth Experience: From British to Multiracial Commonwealth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988; Moore, Robin. Making the New Commonwealth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988; Porter, Bernard. The Lion’s Share: A Short History of the British Empire 1850–1995. 3d London: Longmans Press, 1996. Brett Bennett contra war (Nicaragua, 1980s) Within a year of the July 1979 triumph of the Nicaraguan revolution, there emerged a counterrevolutionary (contra) movement against the Sandinista regime. From around 1982 the war expanded to include large parts of the country, especially in rural zones of the north and east, due in large part to U.S. funding, training, equipment, and organizing under the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Combining an internal civil war with an external war of aggression, the contra war was waged by several counterrevolutionary armies that were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Nicaraguans and millions of dollars of property damage. By the mid-1980s the war compelled the Sandinista regime to devote around half of the national budget to national defense and to institute universal military conscription. By the late 1980s the latter measure proved widely unpopular among Nicaraguans, as did the economic and human cost of the conflict and the shortages of basic goods caused by the war and the May 1985 U.S. trade embargo. Most observers agree that the contra war was a critical factor in causing the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas in February 1990, effectively ending the Sandinista revolution. It was also central to the Iran-contra affair in the United States, which rocked the second Reagan administration (1984–88). With the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas and an internationally supervised demobilization process, by the early 1990s the war effectively ended, though armed groups continued to destabilize many rural areas well into the 1990s. It is estimated that the war uprooted some 600,000 people (around 15 percent of the national population) and caused the deaths of 30,000 to 50,000 civilians and combatants. Small-scale armed resistance to the Sandinista regime by autonomously organized militias began within a month of the FSLN’s takeover, principally in the region north of Jinotega. These earliest contras, calling themselves milpistas (combatants of the MILPAS, or Militias Populares Anti-Sandinistas, successor contra war 105 organizations to the pro-Sandinista Militias Populares Anti-Somocistas, and a play on an indigenous word for “cornfield”), launched their first armed assault against the Sandinistas in November 1979 in the mountains near Quilalí. The MILPAS were generally kinshipbased, composed of fewer than 100 members each and rooted in rural dwellers’ long tradition of antipathy to state authority. During this early period (1979–81), contra organizing also emerged in the borderland zones of Honduras and Costa Rica among exiled Somocistas and National Guardsmen. Like the MILPAS, these paramilitary groups were small in scale and organized principally around personal relationships. By late 1980 some of these exile groups began to receive covert funding from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Argentine military. In April 1981 elements of the MILPAS and ex-Guardia— dominated exile groups in Honduras formed the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (Fuerza Democratica Nicaragüense, or FDN), under the command of ex- Guardia colonel Enrique Bermúdez, composed of some 500 troops. Portraying the Sandinistas as clients of the Cubans and Soviets, in November 1981 Reagan signed a secret order (National Security Decision Directive 17) granting $19 million to the CIA to recruit and train contra forces. On December 1, 1981, he issued a presidential finding calling for U.S. support in conducting paramilitary operations against the Sandinista regime. Around this time a second contra army was formed in the north, the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARN), under the political direction of the Nicaraguan Democratic Union (UDN), and led by exiled businessman José Francisco Cardenal. Henceforth the contra war rapidly gained steam. In April 1982 a second front was opened in the south with the formation of the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE) and its military wing, the Sandino Revolutionary Front (FRS), based in Costa Rica and commanded by former Sandinista Edén Pastora. Another largely autonomous armed rebel group formed in the Atlantic Coast region in late 1981, led by Brooklyn Rivera, among disaffected elements of the mass indigenous organization MISURASATA—an organization composed primarily of Miskitu Amerindians and represented in the FSLN’s newly created Council of State. In the United States, congressional opposition to the Reagan administration’s funding of the contra forces mounted. In December 1982 the House passed an amendment sponsored by Edward Boland (D., Mass.) banning the use of federal funds to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. The Reagan administration found legal ways to circumvent the ban. By 1983 the contra forces had grown to some 13,000 to 15,000 troops, and by 1985 to some 20,000. By this time the contras had committed hundreds of atrocities against Nicaraguan civilians, as documented by the human rights organization Americas Watch and others. In May 1984 Congress passed a second Boland amendment, requiring an end to all military aid to the contras by October 1. For the next two years, the Reagan administration illegally funneled covert aid to Iran in exchange for Iranian arms shipments to the contras. By the late 1980s contra armies were active across much of the northern and central parts of the country. In 1988 and 1989 a series of peace accords (notably the Sapoá Accord of 1988) created a framework for contra demobilization. With the Sandinista defeat in the February 1990 elections, the administration of President Violeta Chamorro negotiated with the leaders of the Nicaraguan Resistance (Resistencia Nicaragüense, or RN, successor to the FDN), culminating in the Disarmament Protocol of May 30, 1990. Agencies of the United Nations and Organization of American States supervised the disarmament process, which by mid- 1990 had processed some 23,000 contras, from an estimated fighting force of 170,000, many of whom demobilized informally. Through the early 1990s armed groups continued to destabilize large parts of the interior, consisting of both ex-contras (recontras) and former members of the Sandinista Army (recompas)— groups that sometimes merged to form groups of revueltos (a play on words meaning both “rebels” and “scrambled eggs”). By 1992, with the contra war officially ended, as many as 23,000 armed insurgents continued to operate in rural areas, posing severe challenges to governance in the second-poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. See also Sandinista National Liberation Front. Further reading: Brody, Reed. Contra Terror in Nicaragua: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission: September 1984– January 1985. Boston: South End Press, 1985; Brown, Timothy C. The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001; Dickey, Christopher. With the Contras: A Reporter in the Wilds of Nicaragua. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985, 1987; Horton, Lynn. Peasants in Arms: War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua, 1979–1994. Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies, 1998. Michael J. Schroeder 106 contra war counterculture in the United States and Europe Counterculture is a sociological term that describes the radical values and models of a group of people clashing with those of the majority, or cultural mainstream. The term entered common usage during the 1960s and 1970s when movements of youth rebellion against conservative social standards swept the United States and western Europe. The countercultural movement represented a reaction against the conformist values embodied by 1950s society, the repressive principles of the cold war, and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam. Young people throughout the world advocated peace and fairer race relations. They challenged conventional gender and sexual role—ideas spawned by the revival of feminism—and pushed legal boundaries to the limit by the recreational use of drugs such as marijuana and LSD. The political and social aspects of counterculture are inseparable from the unconventional postures and appearances of its members. The 1960s counterculture originated on U.S. college campuses and later arrived in European universities. The University of California at Berkeley was a particularly important center, and its 1964 free speech movement became one of the first occasions of tension between youth and the authorities. To scholars of counterculture, the free speech movement was the point of departure for the protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The movement demanded that campus administrators suspend the ban on university political activities and recognize the students’ right to free speech and academic freedom. On October 1, 1964, former student Jack Weinberg refused to leave the table where he was campaigning for the civil rights association Congress for Racial Equality (CORE). His arrest by the police led to a spontaneous demonstration by fellow students, who blocked the police car containing Weinberg for 36 hours. The following month the university decided to bring charges against those who organized the sit-in. This led to imposing demonstrations and the arrest in early December of 800 students in front of Sproul Hall, the university’s administrative center. After more protest parades the University of California started reconsidering its rules on political activities on campus, permitting tables and discussions on the steps of Sproul Hall at certain times of the day. The decade continued in the United States with the outbreak of more tensions, often along generational lines, concerning the Vietnam War, sexual behavior, the role of women in society, African-American civil rights, and drug experimentation. Vietnam became a specific target of criticism, which was also heightened by the imposition of a compulsory military draft. A veritable revolution took place in sexual mores with the spread of contraception and the legalization of abortion in 1973 with the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade. The Summer of Love drew thousands of people from around the world to San Francisco in 1967, particularly to the Haight-Ashbury district. The end of the 1960s also witnessed the organization of gays and lesbians in groups to acquire visibility and to have their identities recognized. Drug taking stopped being a social phenomena linked to urban ghettos and became part of middle-class life. Feminist thinkers asked for comprehensive social change, pointing out that economic structures are at the base of women’s subordination. The United States shifted from the family-oriented society of the 1950s to one that had individual rights at its core. It was in the 1960s that women started to challenge the cultural expectation that they would take primary responsibility for child rearing. Most feminists demanded the alleviation of the social burdens of motherhood through paternal involvement in parenting, quality child care, flexible work arrangements, and a system of social and financial welfare that did not leave them to rely completely on their husbands. At the beginning of the 1960s few Americans were aware of the struggle of African Americans for civil rights. The Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregation in public schools dates back to 1954, but progress in the implementation of integration had been slow. The 1960s witnessed renewed activism of young African Americans, who refused to leave lunch counters when they were denied service or to travel on segregated buses. In 1962 the admission of African American James Meredith to the state university in Mississippi caused a sensation and an outburst of violence from white supremacists. Martin Luther King, Jr., became the leader of the Civil Rights movement, and in August 1963 he managed to draw together hundreds of thousands of African Americans and white Americans in his March on Washington to call attention to the fact that a century after emancipation many African Americans were still unable to exercise basic citizens’ rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were important achievements of the Civil Rights movement. The acts outlawed segregation in public facilities and authorized federal examiners to register black voters, thus ending disenfranchisement. counterculture in the United States and Europe 107 The counterculture soon arrived in European capitals, with devastating effects for the established power. As in the United States, the young people taking part in the countercultural movements were well educated, often at the university level. As riots became widespread throughout European streets, this provoked heated debates within the left. Who were the true proletarians? The students or the policemen who had to battle with them in the streets? Left-wing groups independent from the communist and socialist parties were formed in Italy, France, and Germany. These groups—such as Potere Operaio and Lotta Continua in Italy—did not have parliamentary representation, but still became the avant-garde of the movement because of their capacity to attract young people. cultural forms During the 1960s and 1970s new cultural forms emerged in all artistic fields from cinema to music, from fashion to media. The music of the Beatles came to embody the need for change and the experimentation of younger generations. The Old Hollywood of dated melodramas controlled by studio moguls was replaced by the New Hollywood. Young directors such as Dennis Hopper, Peter Bogdanovich, Mike Nichols, Arthur Penn, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese reflected in their movies the rise of the counterculture and expressed the longing for freedom shared by thousands of young Americans. In Europe the French and British New Waves and the New German Cinema rejected the classic norms of filmmaking, experimenting with photography and editing. They also focused their films on the ordinary lives of the working classes and on those outside of the social mainstream. Underground newspapers spread throughout the United States and Europe, constituting a network of resistance to the establishment. One of the most visible icons of the counterculture movements was the figure of the hippie, who often expressed the distaste for social conventions by renouncing consumerism and living in communes guided by forms of spiritualism outside the Christian tradition. The figure of the hippie encapsulates a major contradiction in the countercultural movement. The communal thrust of the movement is countered by an equally strong emphasis on individual choices, which tends to prevent any form of cooperation. The more fascinating and controversial aspects of the counterculture should not overshadow the contributions of the movement outside the arts. The counterculture influence reached less spectacular and more stable fields such as economics, business, and law. Many of today’s nongovernmental organizations, for example, have their roots in the 1960s search for a fairer and more environmentally minded development. In general, as the counterculture evolved in the 1970s and its icons began to lead more moderate lives, the movement started to be absorbed to a certain degree within the mainstream. As such it left its mark on various fields like philosophy, morality, music, art, lifestyle, and fashion. Yet, especially in the European context, there were those who refused to be absorbed, and pushed their refusal to dangerous extremes. The late 1970s and the 1980s were characterized by the rise of terrorist groups such as the Red Brigades in Italy, Action Directe in France, and the Red Army in Germany. The most apparent features of the 1960s and 1970s counterculture were unconventional appearance, music, drugs, communitarian experiments, and sexual liberation— mostly practiced by white, middle-class young Americans and Europeans. To some the counterculture represented the longing of young people for free speech, equality, and a more inclusive and less exploitative world. Others denounced the counterculture as hedonistic, meaninglessly rebellious, unpatriotic, and destructive of the Western world’s moral order. See also appropriate technology; Beat movement. Further reading: Bailey, Beth, and David Farber. America in the Seventies. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2004; Farber, David, and Beth Bailey. The Columbia Guide to America in the 1960s. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003; Feenberg, Andrew. When Poetry Ruled the Streets: The French May Events of 1968. New York: State University of New York Press, 2001; Kurlansky, Mark. 1968: The Year that Rocked the World. New York: Ballantine Books, 2003; Swingrover, E. A., ed. The Counterculture Reader. New York: Longman, 2003. Luca Prono Cuban migration to the United States Movements of people from Cuba to the United States comprise a longstanding feature of both countries’ histories. The panic of 1857 prompted numerous Cuban cigar manufacturers to move their operations to Key West, Tampa, and elsewhere along the Florida coast. During and after the Ten Years’ War (1868–78), several thousand Cubans formed exile communities along the 108 Cuban migration to the United States U.S. eastern seaboard—especially in Key West, Tampa, Ocala, and Jacksonville, Florida, and further north in New York City. The 1850 U.S. census shows 969 persons of Cuban birth living in the United States, with most (275) in Louisiana and 23 in Florida. By 1860 there were 2,056, with 55 in Florida. That number more than tripled by 1870, reaching 6,515, with about half (3,014) in New York and less than a fifth (1,147) in Florida. By 1880 the figure rose slightly to 7,004, with Florida (2,625) surpassing New York (2,253), followed by Louisiana (652) and Pennsylvania (359, with 309 in Philadelphia). In 1900, in the aftermath of the Cuban War of Independence and the U.S. military intervention and occupation of the island, 11,243 Cuban-born persons were listed, including 6,645 in Florida (3,378 in Tampa, 3,015 in Key West) and 2,251 in New York. In 1910 the number rose to 15,725, remaining stagnant to 1920 (15,822). All of the above figures likely undercounted the actual number. A much larger movement of Cubans to the United States began with the Cuban revolution, which came to power in January 1959. From 1960 to 1962 an estimated 195,000 Cubans immigrated to the United States, mostly professionals and members of the middle class, with most settling in Miami, Florida; Union City, New Jersey; and New York City. The exodus continued in several waves through the 1960s and into the 1970s, becoming integral to cold war politics, welcomed by the U.S. government and materially harming the Cuban economy, even as the exoduses proved politically useful to the Castro regime. The 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) allowed undocumented Cuban immigrants to stay in the country and gain permanent residence after one year, rights not extended to any other immigrant group. In 1980 some 125,000 Cubans, the so-called Marielitos, emigrated to the United States in the Mariel boatlift. In the summer of 1994 at Castro’s invitation, an estimated 33,000 Cubans made the journey. The exodus prompted the U.S. government to negotiate an agreement with Cuba, in September 1994, in which the United States agreed to admit a minimum of 20,000 Cubans annually, and emigrants intercepted at sea would no longer be permitted to enter the United States. In 1995 the 1966 CAA was revised to incorporate the so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy, which stipulated that undocumented Cuban immigrants who reached U.S. soil (“dry feet”) would be permitted to apply for permanent residence status in one year, while those intercepted at sea (“wet feet”) would be sent back to Cuba or to a third country. The 2000 U.S. census enumerated 1,241,685 persons of Cuban ancestry in the United States, comprising 3.5 percent of U.S. Hispanics and 0.4 percent of the U.S. population of 281.4 million. Most lived in Miami– Dade County, Florida, with 525,841 Cuban-born, the single largest national group among large influxes of Haitians, Dominicans, Central Americans, and others from the 1980s especially. As a result of these demographic changes, the politics and culture of south Florida have undergone profound shifts, with relatively affluent, politically conservative, and vehemently anti-Castro Cuban Americans increasingly shaping the region’s economy, politics, and culture. See also Bay of Pigs; Castro, Fidel. Further reading: Masud-Piloto, Félix Roberto. With Open Arms: Cuban Migration to the United States. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1988; Miami–Dade County, Planning Research Section, “Demographic Profile, Miami-Dade County, Florida, 1960–2000,” September 2003, http://www. miamidade.gov/planzone/Library/Census/demographic_profile. pdf (accessed February 7, 2007). Michael J. Schroeder Cuban missile crisis (October 1962) In what many experts consider the closest the world has yet come to nuclear war, for 13 days in October 1962 the United States and the Soviet Union faced off over the Soviet placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba. In the end, the Soviet Union backed down, agreed to remove the missiles in exchange for the removal of U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey, and the crisis passed. The Cuban missile crisis left an enduring mark on U.S.- Soviet relations, heightened U.S. resolve in other cold war conflicts, and appeared to demonstrate the viability of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence through mutually assured destruction. The long-term roots of the crisis lie in the atmosphere of mutual hostility and distrust engendered by the cold war. In the shorter term, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev hoped to use the provocation to force the United States to remove the 15 Jupiter nuclear missiles in Turkey, which were within striking distance of Moscow. In addition, the botched April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba heightened revolutionary leader Fidel Castro’s fears of a follow-up U.S. effort to topple his regime. The Bay of Pigs events also persuaded Khrushchev that U.S. president John F. Kennedy Cuban missile crisis (October 1962 ) 109 was weak and indecisive and would back down when confronted with the reality of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Declassified documents and a series of conferences among participants from the United States, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union have confirmed that the events of October 1962 brought the world closer to the brink of nuclear holocaust than officials at the time realized. Scholars have meticulously reconstructed the chronology of events marking the crisis. Through the summer of 1962 the Soviets built a variety of military installations on Cuba, as confirmed by aerial reconnaissance, though U.S. intelligence analysts did not believe they included nuclear weapons. On October 14, 1962, a U-2 spy plane photographed military bases around San Cristóbal, Cuba, demonstrating the existence of nuclear installations. Khrushchev, with Castro’s approval, had deployed launchers for at least 40 medium-range and intermediate-range nuclear missiles, capable of reaching all of the continental United States except the Pacific Northwest. For the next two days, U.S. analysts poured over the photographs. Kennedy and his national security team were briefed on their findings on the morning of October 16, the beginning of the “thirteen days.” His team devised two plans: an invasion of the island, and a naval blockade—the latter, by international law, an act of war. Kennedy opted for the blockade, announced in a televised address to the nation on October 22. The next six days were the height of the crisis. On October 28, one day before the U.S. deadline for launching an invasion of Cuba, Khrushchev agreed to remove the launchers in exchange for the U.S. removal of its missiles from Turkey. Many scholars argue that the outcome of the crisis prompted a more muscular U.S. 110 Cuban missile crisis (October 1962 ) An aerial view showing the medium-range ballistic missile field launch site at San Cristóbal, Cuba, on October 25, 1962. The presence of these weapons led the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of war. response to perceived Communist aggression around the world, and contributed to deepened U.S. intervention in Vietnam. See also cold war. Further reading: Chang, Lawrence, and Peter Kornbluh, eds. The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: A National Security Archive Documents Reader. New York: The New Press, 1999; Nathan, James. Anatomy of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001. Michael J. Schroeder Cuban revolution (1959– ) On January 1, 1959, a broad-based insurrectionary movement—with Fidel Castro at its helm—overthrew the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and inaugurated the Cuban revolution, a process of social transformation that continues to the present writing. Its ideology was at first broadly nationalist and democratic, but by 1961 the revolution was proclaimed unambiguously socialist and Marxist-Leninist. One of only a handful of social revolutions in 20th-century Latin America, the Cuban revolution had a major impact not only within Cuba but around the world. In Latin America, the revolution encouraged the formation of leftist and neo-Marxist ideologies and movements of national liberation, sparking a florescence of guerrilla groups in the 1960s and after that hoped to duplicate the successes of the Cuban revolutionaries. The Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua (1979–90), for instance, found much of its inspiration in the events in Cuba, as did other national liberation and guerrilla movements from Mexico to Argentina. By bringing a Marxist-Leninist regime to the historic “backyard” of the United States, the Cuban revolution was also a major event in the cold war. Its effects were felt in Angola, Mozambique, Vietnam, and scores of other nation-states around the world, particularly in the two decades following Batista’s ouster. The revolution found its long-term origins in the structural dependency of Cuba on the United States since the thwarting of Cuban independence in 1898 and the U.S.-imposed Platt Amendment of 1901, which prompted denunciations of “Yankee imperialism” across the island; and in the poverty, economic inequalities, and political disfranchisement of the Cuban people under a series of dictatorial regimes. Most narratives of the revolution begin with the rise of the Jesuit- and university-educated lawyer Fidel Castro and his band of revolutionaries. On July 26, 1953, Castro—at the head of a group of 134 men— attacked the Moncada barracks in Oriente province in eastern Cuba. The assault was quickly defeated but catapulted Castro into national prominence. At his trial in October 1953, he delivered a brilliant speech, later turned into a pamphlet and becoming one of the defining texts of the revolution, whose title repeated its closing words: “History will absolve me.” Sentenced to 15 years in prison, Castro became something of a folk hero for his eloquent denunciations of the Batista dictatorship and the island’s social injustices. Released on May 15, 1955, in a general amnesty, Castro traveled to Mexico to form a guerrilla army of Cuban exiles. In February 1956 he announced the formation of his 26 July Movement, and on November 25, with 81 other men, departed Tuxpan, Mexico, aboard the yacht Granma, headed for eastern Cuba, which they reached on December 2. The guerrilla war in the Sierra Maestra in 1957–58 is the topic of an expansive literature. Led by Castro, his brother Raúl, and the Argentine Ernesto “Che” Guevara, the rebels gradually earned the trust of the peasants and workers who comprised the region’s majority. It also established contacts with politically disaffected labor leaders, workers, students, intellectuals, and other activists in Cuba’s major cities, especially Havana, whose protest movements soon dovetailed with Castro’s. After a complex series of events that found the Batista regime increasingly beleaguered, Castro’s forces entered Havana in triumph on January 1, 1959. On seizing power, the revolutionaries embarked on a program of social transformation that focused on nationalization of major industries and broadranging reforms in land ownership, housing, rents, food, and related spheres. Since a large proportion of Cuban land and industries were U.S.-owned, the stage was set for confrontation with the United States. Hostile rhetoric intensified on both sides as the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower, under pressure from business interests and anticommunists, interpreted events in Cuba through the prism of the cold war. In February 1960 the Castro regime signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union in which the Soviets agreed to sell Cuba oil at a discount and buy Cuban sugar at a high price. In June Standard Oil, Texaco, and Shell refused to refine Soviet oil, prompting the Castro regime to nationalize their refineries. In retaliation the Eisenhower administration cancelled its commitment to buy its annual sugar quota of 700,000 tons, which the Cuban revolution (1959– ) 111 Soviets quickly assumed. What had begun as a national liberation movement quickly escalated into a cold war battleground, with the Castro regime, in effect, trading U.S. economic dependency for Soviet dependency. On December 2, 1961, following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and U.S. trade embargo of April, Castro proclaimed: “I am a Marxist-Leninist and will remain a Marxist-Leninist until the day I die.” Early efforts to diversify the economy largely failed, plagued by bureaucratic micromanagement and overplanning, and over-reliance on the concept of the socialist “New Man,” in which economic incentives were to be displaced by revolutionary fervor. From 1964 the regime opted to increase the economy’s reliance on sugar, culminating in the disastrous policy goal of producing 10 million tons of sugar by 1970. The effort failed and had negative economic effects for years. Efforts to improve the living standards of ordinary Cubans met with greater success. Government programs in housing, health care, education, and related spheres are generally considered the biggest successes of the revolution. By the 1970s hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, and illiteracy had been all but eliminated, while the Cuban health-care system ranked among the most developed in the world. On the negative side of the ledger, political oppression increased markedly, with all organized opposition to the regime banned, thousands of dissidents jailed, and freedom of speech severely curtailed. Beginning in 1960 and continuing in several waves thereafter, the regime’s intolerance of political dissent and socialist economic policies prompted tens of thousands of middle-class and professional Cubans to migrate to the United States, where large exile communities formed, centered in Miami. Internationally, Cuba became a beacon of hope for revolutionaries across Latin America. To the chagrin of his more cautious Soviet patrons, Castro announced his intention to export revolution to Latin America. The plan’s most ardent proponent was former minister of industries Che Guevara, whose “foco” theory of revolution, which held that a small group of dedicated revolutionaries could win peasant support and spark a social revolution, was put to the test in Bolivia in 1967. The expected mass uprising did not materialize, and Guevara was captured and killed by the Bolivian army. Castro remained the head of the Cuban Communist Party through the 1970s and 1980s, as the bureaucracy expanded and the revolution grew increasingly institutionalized. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of its approximately $4 billion in annual subsidies, combined with the continuing U.S. trade embargo, the revolution entered a “Special Period” that saw a decline in living standards and in all major industries. In the early 2000s, Cuba was one of only a handful of countries worldwide explicitly espousing communist ideology. In early 2007, with over 1 million Cubans and Cuban Americans in Miami and elsewhere anticipating the regime’s demise, Castro appeared on the brink of death, with speculation rife on whether the revolution could survive without him. He resigned the presidency in favor of his brother, Raoul, in February 2008. Further reading: Bonachea, Ramón L., and Marta San Martín. The Cuban Insurrection, 1952–1959. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1974; Leonard, Thomas M. Castro and the Cuban Revolution. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999; Thomas, Hugh. Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom. New York: Harper & Row, 1971; Wolf, Eric R. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Michael J. Schroeder Cyprus, independence of On June 4, 1878, Britain concluded a treaty with the Ottoman sultan Abdul Hamid II, officially known as a Convention of Defensive Alliance. In this treaty Abdul Hamid agreed to the loan of Cyprus to Britain, while retaining Ottoman sovereignty over the island and the right to collect a tax known as the tribute. Britain won de facto control of the island and the right to make laws and international agreements in the name of Cyprus. Within weeks of the signing of this treaty, the Union Jack flag was hoisted over Nicosia, and shortly afterward a contingent of Indian army troops arrived from Malta to safeguard British colonial rule, which lasted 82 years. For Britain, Cyprus became a vital staging area for its Middle East interests. The island was formally taken over by the British in 1914, when the Ottoman Empire aligned itself with Germany and the other Central Powers during World War I. Under the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, Turkey and Greece agreed that Cyprus would remain under British sovereignty, and in 1925 Cyprus was declared a crown colony. Both the Greeks and the Turks of Cyprus considered British control a welcome relief from Turkish taxation; many Greek Cypriots also felt that the departure of the Ottoman administration brought the island closer to the Greek dream of enosis, or union, with Greece. Thus, in effect, began the efforts of the Greek Cypriots to link the island’s destiny with that of Greece. The British govern- 112 Cyprus, independence of ment continued to state formally that no change in the status of the island was contemplated. Such an attitude further embittered the Greek Cypriots, although it was of some comfort to the Turkish Cypriots. On April 1, 1955, a secret organization calling itself the National Organization of Cypriot Fighters—known by its Greek initials as EOKA (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston)—declared a struggle until death to free the island from British rule and to link it with the Greek mainland. The war for the future of Cyprus began as colonial empires were crumbling around the globe. The British felt there was no question of a union with Greece or of full independence for Cyprus. Considering its commitments in the Middle East and its still important role on the southeastern flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Britain regarded Cyprus as a crucial military base on the traditional crossroads of big-power competition for influence in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkish Cypriot reactions were predictable. The Turks felt that, if successful, the Greek struggle for enosis against British colonial rule meant that the Turkishspeaking minority on the island would lose the protection of the British. Fear of a Greek victory prompted the creation of a Turkish Cypriot counter organization known as VULCAN; the Turkish Cypriot minority also cooperated with the British police and military in tracking down suspected EOKA fighters. To the slogan of enosis, Turkish Cypriots answered with their own solution, that of takism, or partition, of Cyprus. Georgios Grivas, who had previously served as a colonel in the Greek army, led the EOKA. Grivas arrived on the island from Greece in 1954 and set out to prepare what amounted to an well-organized uprising. In Nicosia, early in 1955, rumors of landings of saboteurs, of infiltration by agents dispatched from Greece, and of organized resistance began sweeping the narrow streets, and soon Cyprus became an armed camp. An estimated 28,000 British troops were deployed throughout the island, manning roadblocks, searching passersby, pursuing elusive terrorist suspects, and uncovering arms caches and hideouts in some of the most improbable places. Cyprus had become a dangerous weak spot in the NATO alliance. What needed to be done was to work out a system of ethnic power-sharing that would satisfy Greece and Turkey, as both nations worked to protect their Cypriot ethnic compatriots as well as their own interests. Talks between the two countries continued throughout January 1959. On February 5, Greek prime minister Constantine Karamanlis and Adnan Menderes of Turkey met in Zurich, where they prepared, after negotiations and consultation with the leaders of the two Cypriot communities, an outline for a solution to the Cyprus situation. With that document in hand, they traveled to London, where they were joined by Archbishop Mikhalis Khristodoulou Makarios III and Dr. Fazil Kuchuk, the political leader of the Turkish Cypriot community. The new Cypriot constitution, based on the Zurich-London agreements, was issued in April 1960 and paved the way for the proclamation of the independent Republic of Cyprus. The president of the republic was a Greek Cypriot while the vice president was a Turkish Cypriot, both being elected by their representative communities. Both had veto powers over foreign affairs, defense, fiscal matters, and security. three treaties On the same day the constitution was finalized it was accompanied by three treaties: the Treaty of Guarantee, the Treaty of Alliance, and the Treaty of Establishment. The Treaty of Guarantee was signed by Turkey, Britain, Greece, and Cyprus. It stated that the four countries agreed not to undertake activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, a union of Cyprus with any other state, or a partition of the island. The Treaty of Alliance involved Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. It established a tripartite headquarter on the island and permitted the two latter states to deploy, respectively, 950 and 650 persons in Cyprus to protect the island. The Treaty of Establishment was signed between Britain and Cyprus and granted Britain sovereignty over a territory on the island’s southern coast for two military bases, Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The constitutional agreement was reached at the price of some 500 killed during the EOKA struggle with the British, but it also allowed Britain’s colonial disengagement from Cyprus. The flag under which the two communities of Cyprus were to unite was displayed to the public on August 16, 1960. The Union Jack was replaced with a white flag bearing an orange map of Cyprus with small green branches underneath. See also: Cyprus, Turkish invasion of. Further reading: Cyprus, A Country Study. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1993; Halley, Laurence. Ancient Affections: Ethnic Groups and Foreign Policy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1985. Brian M. Eichstadt Cyprus, independence of 113 Cyprus, Turkish invasion of On July 19, 1974, Turkish warships and landing craft moved toward the northern coast of Cyprus. The invasion— or intervention, to the Turks—was Turkey’s answer to the military coup of 15 July that toppled Archbishop Mikhalis Khristodoulou Makarios III, president of Cyprus, at the behest of the military junta in power in Athens, Greece. Turkish officials justified the military action by citing the terms of Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee, noting the impossibility of joint action with Greece and the reluctance of Britain to use military force to restore the state of affairs established by the constitution of 1960. The Turkish military offensive began on July 20, and although the Greek National Guard tried to defend the beachfront of northern Cyprus, it was defeated by the far stronger Turkish armed forces. The Greek National Guard was poorly armed, while the Turks used new equipment and weapons recently purchased from the United States. Britain evacuated an estimated 12,000 British and other foreign nationals, as well as a number of Cypriots, to the Akrotiri military base and from there to England. By July 22, the United Nations succeeded in obtaining a cease-fire. At this stage of the operation, named Attila II, the Turks controlled only a strip of the northern coastline about 10 miles long, including Kyrenia and a few villages. Under pressure of the events in Cyprus, the Athens junta finally collapsed after more than seven years in power. Former Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis returned from exile in Paris to form a new cabinet. At the same time, Nicos Sampson renounced his seven-dayold presidency of Cyprus, leaving the shattered country to Glafcos Clerides, who had previously been the president of the House of Representatives. During the early days of the post-invasion period, the Greek National Guard attacked Turkish Cypriots, thereby worsening intercommunal relations. A conference of the guarantor powers (Greece, Turkey, and Britain), as well as Cyprus, was organized in Geneva on July 25 and resulted in a declaration calling for an exchange of prisoners and protection by the UN forces of the Turkish Cypriot enclaves. As scheduled, the second part of the conference convened on August 9 with Clerides and a large team of advisers and experts representing Cyprus. Meanwhile, the small area of Cyprus held by the Turkish army was further occupied by some 30,000 troops with accompanying tanks, and artillery. On August 13 the Turkish foreign minister Turan Günes¸ shocked international opinion by refusing a request for a 36-to-48-hour delay made by Clerides in order to consider proposals to resolve the crisis. At dawn on the following day, armor-backed Turkish columns fanned out east and west of Nicosia. By this action Turkey was in violation of the many Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire and troop withdrawal, as well as agreements that were signed in Geneva. After three more days of fighting, Turkey called a cease-fire, but not before 37 percent of Cyprus had come under Turkish military occupation. Approximately 10,000 Turkish Cypriot refugees from enclaves in the south were flown to northern Cyprus from British bases by way of Turkey. Some 140,000 to 160,000 Greek Cypriots, making up roughly one-third of the island’s population, were expelled from their homes and land. Acts of ethnic cleansing by the Turkish military were documented, and many POWs are still unaccounted for. The events of 1974 dramatically altered the internal balance of power between the two Cypriot communities and coupled their prevailing political and institutional separation with a stark physical and geographical separation. Until the present day, the island remains divided between the Greek-speaking south, now a member of the EU, and the self-styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey. See also Cyprus, independence of. Further reading: Cyprus, A Country Study. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1993; Halley, Laurence. Ancient Affections: Ethnic Groups and Foreign Policy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1985. Brian M. Eichstadt

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki