Fandom

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History D

749pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

The Ancient World Edit

Damascus and Aleppo Damascus and Aleppo were two cities situated at the center of the Silk Road, a key intercontinental trade route that linked the Roman Empire to China. Caravans traveling on the Silk Road traded in silk, perfumes, and spices in the Far East. The city of Aleppo, for example, lay at the crossroads of two trade routes, one from India and the other from Damascus. They were important trading centers of caravan traffi c and powerful centers of urban culture. Both regions are situated near the Mediterranean coast (about 62 miles from the sea). The two towns contain agricultural land and nomad territory. Both Damascus and Aleppo suffered earthquakes, epidemics, and internal strife throughout history but were able to regain their prominence successfully after every adversity. Damascus (Dimashq as-Sham in Arabic) is one of the oldest cities in the world that is still inhabited. The ancient city of Damascus lies within city walls. Excavations reveal that the earliest inhabitants lived there sometime between 10,000 and 8000 b.c.e. The city of Aleppo, on the other hand, was inhabited from 1800 b.c.e., according to archaeological records. After 800 b.c.e. the Assyrians, the Persians, and then the Greeks, in 333 b.c.e., ruled Aleppo. Damascus only achieved prominence in 1100 b.c.e. after the coming of the Semitic peoples known as the Aramaeans. The Aramaeans built up the infrastructure in the city in the form of canals and tunnels linked to the Barada River. The water distribution system was then improved upon by later rulers of the city, the Romans who conquered Syria in 64 b.c.e., and members of the Omayyad dynasty. Because of their similarities, Damascus and Aleppo were rivals, and comparisons were often made of them. Even though Aleppo was more successful in economic terms, it seems that Damascus thrived even more as a center of Islam. Islamic intellects often congregated in Damascus, and Islamic art fl ourished in the city. Conditions in Damascus were very well suited for the fl ourishing of the intellectual and artistic milieu, as it had been the center of large empires of those who ruled over it. Damascus was after all the base for the Muslims against the crusaders in the seventh century c.e. During that time it was the center of administration of the caliph. Damascus became the military and political base of Muslim fi ghters against the crusaders. Nuraddin fi rst acquired Damascus and Aleppo in 1154, followed by Saladin after his death. In 1260 Mongols attacked the cities, which fell to the hands of the Mamluks in 1317. Damascus continued to enjoy political prominence under the Mamluks as the capital of the Mamluk Empire until 1516, though this period witnessed another Mongol invasion of Damascus in 1400. Damascus occupies an important position in Sunni tradition as one of the holiest Muslim cities along with Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, because landmarks events in Islamic history occurred there. It is D 105 the birthplace of Abraham and is also where Moses was buried. See also Syriac culture and church. Further reading: Fawaz, Tarazi, and C. A. Bayly. Modernity and Culture from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002; Ma’oz, Moshe, et al. Modern Syria: From Ottoman Rule to Pivotal Role in the Middle East. Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1999; Weiss, Walter M. The Bazaar: Markets and Merchants of the Islamic World. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1998. Nurfadzilah Yahaya Daoism (Taoism) The period roughly between 600 and 300 b.c.e. in China is called the era of the Hundred Schools of Philosophy, the term hundred meaning “many.” It was an age of political and social change and turmoil as the Zhou (Chou) dynasty was breaking down, which led thinking men to develop philosophies to explain, accommodate to, or change the state of affairs. Two out of these philosophies, Daoism and Confucianism, would endure as dominant and complementary ways of life for the Chinese for more than two millennia. While all schools of philosophy were seeking the way, or dao, one among them would appropriate the word for its teachings. While Confucians sought to return society to the golden age of antiquity through moral reform and study, others sought escape to a simple life, living as recluses and being content with nonaction; their philosophy is called Daoism. It is diffi cult to fi nd reliable information about early Daoism. However, scholars accept two books as the earliest works on Daoism: the Laozi (Lao Tzu) or the Daodejing (Tao-te Ching), which translates as the “Canon of the Way and Virtue,” and the Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu). The Laozi’s purported author was a man called Laozi (Lao Tzu), which means the Old Master; he supposedly was a senior contemporary of Confucius and had worked as archivist at the royal court. There is no proof that Laozi existed, and the short, cryptic book of about 5,000 words attributed to him seems to be a composite work that is no older than the fourth century b.c.e. It teaches that the mystic Dao is the source of all being, which must be intuitively understood by leading a passively yielding life. It is a terse and enigmatic work susceptible to many interpretations. Its political philosophy teaches the sage ruler not to interfere in the lives of the people, give up warfare and luxuries, and passively guide the people to lives of innocence and harmony with the Dao. Modern laissez-faire ideals fi nd similarities with Daoism. Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu), which means Master Zhuang, lived around 369–286 b.c.e. Very little is known about him, and the book that bears his name is witty, full of paradoxes and imagery. The message of the book is a plea for the freedom of the individual and his liberation from egotism so that he can come to understand the underlying unity of the Dao and thus achieve happiness that is beyond death. Even though Daoists taught nonaction and passivity, they were nevertheless human enough to preach their view in competition with other philosophical views. One can hardly imagine a country governed by the laissez-faire Daoist philosophy. Nevertheless, when Confucianism became China’s offi cial philosophy after c. 100 b.c.e., Daoism continued to hold its attraction because of its imaginativeness and perhaps as an antidote to the serious-minded ideals taught by Confucius. Daoist philosophy has been a leavening agent in Chinese life, a consolation for those who suffered failures and a relief to the many duties that circumscribed life. In this way Confucian and Daoist philosophies supplemented and complemented each other. Neo-Daoism is a movement that began in the Eastern Han dynasty (25–220 c.e.). One part of this movement undertook to harmonize Daoist teachings with Confucian social and moral ideals that made it possible for a Confucian offi cial to be both a conscientious pub- The city of Damascus lies within a fortifi cation of walls and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world. 106 Daoism lic servant and at the same to maintain a degree of detachment from the world. The Daoist notion that rulers should rule passively and follow the advice of ministers appealed to Confucian offi cials. It became widely accepted practice during the Han dynasty that ministers should initiate policy and that emperors should not act before seeking the advice of his ministers. When China fell to disunity for four centuries after the fall of the Han dynasty in 220 c.e., northern China came under the rule of non-Chinese nomads who had little understanding or use for Confucian doctrines. In this prevailing atmosphere two new movements took root. One was the popularization of Buddhism, introduced to China during the Han dynasty, at the beginning of the Common Era. Buddhism did not gain widespread popularity under the Han, but its doctrines became widely appealing during the era of division. Similarly the intellectual energies that were absorbed by Confucian studies during the Han dynasties found outlet in the writing of commentaries on the Laozi and Zhuangzi during the era of division when Confucianism fell largely out of favor. The study developed into a many-sided movement that investigated metaphysics, aesthetics, and religion. In the process these Daoist scholars also reinterpreted their philosophy in terms of the social and moral philosophy of Confucianism. Some Neo-Daoists reacted to the disorder of the post-Han period by becoming hedonists and rejecting all social obligations and restraints. Their most famous example was a group during the third century c.e. that called themselves the Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove, who explained their fl outing of all social conventions as the only way of preserving their moral integrity. One of these seven famously had a servant follow him with a jug of wine and a shovel wherever he went so that he could have a drink whenever he felt thirsty and so that a hole could be dug to bury him wherever he dropped dead. They have been called romantic for their antics and their revolt against a decadent society. Other romantic Daoists who lived as recluses in mountain retreats have used nature’s inspiration to create landscape paintings that became the most respected genre of Chinese art and to write nature-inspired poetry. Religious Daoism is also called popular Daoism. It is also called the School of Huang-Lao, after Huangdi (Huang-ti) the Yellow Emperor (the legendary founder of the Chinese nation) and Laozi. Whereas the Laozi and the Zhuangzi taught some adherents to live simply and in tranquillity, and others to reject the trammels of conventional behavior, another movement led by followers of the occult was also under way. The result was the coalescing of many ancient folk superstitions and cults. Their goals were a long life, terrestrial immortality, and ultimately celestial immortality, reached through divination and magic, breathing and other yoga-like exercises, and living a moral life. Daoist sorcerers and shamans used the Laozi and Zhuangzi as texts, searching for occult meaning in vague and suggestive phrases. They also consulted the Yi Jing (I Ching), or Book of Changes, an ancient text that began as a diviner’s handbook and had acquired obscure commentaries for their guidance. Alchemy involved the search of substances and concoction of drugs that could improve health and prolong life, and also the turning of base materials into gold. Daoist experiments resulted in advances in chemistry, mineralogy, and pharmaceuticals and resulted in the invention of the compass, gunpowder, and porcelain. However, the questionable motives of the experiments made them less than reputable academically. There were many subgroups among religious Daoists. One cult was called the Way of Five Bushels of Rice because its founder, a man called Zhang Ling (Chang Ling), who lived in the second century c.e., demanded fi ve bushels of rice from his followers. They called him Heavenly Teacher, and he passed his title to his descendants to modern times. The merit system taught adherents to think good thoughts and perform good deeds in order to prolong life and attain immortality and explained illness, death, and misfortune as punishments for ones’ own sins and those of one’s forebears; heaven or hell were everyone’s ultimate destination. Popular Daoism learned from Buddhism in building temples, rituals, festivals, and instituting orders of monks and nuns. It has a large pantheon consisting of deities, historical heroes, immortals, spirits, and sacred spots. It enjoyed imperial patronage beginning in the Han dynasty, as rulers sought long life, immortality, and communion with the spirits. Tang (T’ang) dynasty rulers also patronized religious Daoists, even as many were devout Buddhists, because the imperial house was surnamed Li and Daoists had long since given Laozi a surname, also Li, thus giving the ruling house an illustrious ancestor. The same elements that made religious Daoism favored by rulers also made it popular with the people of China. See also Buddhism in China; Confucian Classics. Further reading: Creel, Herrlee G. What Is Taoism? And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970; Kallenmarck, Max. Lao Tzu and Taoism. Trans. by Roger Greaves. Stanford, CA: Stanford Daoism 107 University Press, 1969; Lau, D. C. Tao Te Ching. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1963; Welch, Holmes H. The Parting of Ways: Lao Tzu and the Taoist Movement. Boston: Beacon Press, 1957. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Darius I (c. 550–486 b.c.e.) Persian ruler Darius I, or Darius the Great, consolidated the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus II. We know more about Darius than any other of the kings of the Persian Empire since we have two major literary sources on his life. The fi rst is an inscription at Behistun in modern-day Iran that Darius had carved into a mountain rock face high up above one of the key trade routes from Mesopotamia to the Iranian high plateau. It describes how in the early years of Darius’s reign he reestablished the empire after the rebellions following the death of Cambyses II. The second source is the Histories of Herodotus of Halicarnassus (c. 480– c. 429 b.c.e.), a Greek who wrote describing the expansion of the Persian Empire from Cyrus to Xerxes I. Darius was born about 550 b.c.e., son of Hystaspes, who was later the satrap of Parthia. Our fi rst reference to Darius is as an offi cer in Cambyses II’s Egyptian army of occupation. On Cambyses’ death early in 522 b.c.e. Darius went straight to Media to press his claim to the throne through a common great-great-grandfather with Cambyses, Achaemenes. In the fall of 522 b.c.e. Darius, with six coconspirators, killed the usurper claimant Gaumata, and to consolidate his claim soon thereafter married two of Cyrus’s daughters, and one of his granddaughters, in addition to taking three other wives. However, Darius’s claim was not easily accepted, and there was unrest throughout the empire. In the Behistun inscription Darius speaks of rebellions in more than half of the satrapies of the empire, including in the greatest city of the day—Babylon. Unlike Cyrus who was welcomed almost as the savior of Babylon, Darius was looked on differently and only subdued Babylon after a siege and punishment by execution of 3,000 of the surviving leading citizens. Even then a second rebellion took place in Babylon some years later. It took until December 521 b.c.e. for all of the rebellions in other parts of the empire to be stamped out, and another few years before the empire was totally at peace. Although Darius was successful militarily, his greatest achievement was the creation of an effective administration for the empire. According to Herodotus, as soon as peace was established Darius set up 20 satrapies, or administrative districts. In each of the satrapies he established tax systems and recruitment requirements for his armies. He also built systems of royal roads and set up along them places where a change of horses, food, and lodging could be found for those moving about the empire. With such a far-fl ung empire the satraps in charge of each satrapy had to operate with a signifi cant degree of independence from the central government. However, that independence had the potential to threaten the emperor’s control, and Darius set up a system of inspectors known as the “king’s eyes” whose job it was to check on the effectiveness and loyalty of the satraps. The improved road system and the construction of massive military granaries allowed for a large army and for the army to move about the empire with relative ease. In addition, Darius built a canal, completed in 498 b.c.e., connecting the Nile with the Red Sea, and thereby the Persian Gulf, which allowed trade by ship to go on across the width of the empire. The building of roads also benefi ted trade and building projects in that materials could be more easily brought from distant parts of the empire to the place of construction. Palace cities were built in Susa and at Persepolis, the new Persian capital, and the construction of both probably benefi ted from the increased access to materials from other parts of the empire. Even today the ruins of Persepolis suggest something of its former glory as the ceremonial capital of the empire. Each spring the most important of the rites, the New Year Ceremony, was enacted in Persepolis, and annual tribute was received from ambassadors representing every part of the empire. Darius followed Cyrus’s example with a religious policy tolerant of a wide variety of gods. By way of example, in September 518 b.c.e. Darius visited Egypt, and Egyptian inscriptions record how he gave precious gifts to the key temples and paid homage to many of the most important gods. Similarly, we have evidence of his offering sacrifi ces to Babylonian and Elamite gods and to the Greek god Apollo, who, as a god of wisdom, was taken as the Greek counterpart of the Persian high god Ahuramazda. His religious policy is also illustrated by the case of the Jews who had been promised funds by Cyrus to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Opposition by the Samaritans had prevented this, and the Bible records how the Jews petitioned Darius to look through the palace archives to fi nd Cyrus’s original decree and thereby to prove the legitimacy of their project. Darius found the decree and gave his permission for the 108 Darius I reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple, which began in 515 b.c.e. In 499 b.c.e. the Greek cities in Asia Minor rebelled, and it took fi ve years for the Persians to regain control of the region. In 490 b.c.e. Darius sent out another expedition, this time against the European part of the Greek-speaking world. The Persians captured a number of Greek islands and then landed at Marathon, some miles from Athens. The famous Battle of Marathon, though paraded by the Greeks as their victory, was not a full one since from that time on the Persians controlled the Aegean Sea and set this as their westernmost boundary. In November 486 b.c.e. Darius died at the age of 64. Starting with a loose collection of provinces, he had created a strong and well-organized empire to hand on to his successor Xerxes, the eldest son of his fi rst wife. See also Babylon, later periods; Egypt, culture and religion; Fertile Crescent; Medes, Persians, and Elamites; 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 David (c. 1000 b.c.e.) king of Israel The life of David, king of Israel, is full of paradoxes. He was called in the earliest historical traditions of the Bible, “the sweet psalmist of Israel” and the one chosen “after [God’s] own heart,” yet he is famously summed up elsewhere as the adulterer and murderer “in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” He was at pains to proclaim his loyalty to the previous and fi rst king of Israel, Saul, and yet he was the ringleader of an insurrectionist group that undermined the government of that same king. He was the boyish, sensitive son of a rural farmer, and he was the warrior who felled the champion of Israel’s nemesis and went on to slaughter “his ten thousands.” It is in the juxtaposition of these images of David that later Jewish and Christian religious traditions fi nd so much contradiction. In historical terms David anchors the Bible in time and space. The theory is that the empire of David really did outshine the other ancient empires of its days, and this historical fact can be demonstrated. Before the narrative of David, the Bible shows the power of stories and myths to persuade and inspire people of later generations, but with David (and his son Solomon) comes external evidence to support biblical reputations and stories. On the other hand, the evidence for the empire of David as described in the Bible is meager. It causes some modern scholars to hold that the idea of a united kingdom of Israel and Judah, founded by David and expanded by Solomon, is exaggerated or idealized. In fact, there is no mention of David in extant contemporary writings, yet there are inscriptions that mention his name within 200 years of his purported life. According to the accounts found in various books of the Bible, David was anointed as king by one of the prophets and Judges, Samuel, who had rejected King Saul. David was the youngest in his family, a mere shepherd, but David was later chosen as a minstrel for the court of King Saul. David’s humble beginning and inauspicious debut before Saul were even more incongruous with his next role as warrior and national savior. He wandered out to a battlefi eld and was provoked into a duel by the threats of the Philistine champion and giant Goliath. Once David slew the adversary, Saul’s army prevailed. Back in the court, Saul grew ever more jealous of David. David’s charisma grew by the day, and by his exploits he persuaded even Saul’s son and daughter to protect his life. Saul’s jealousy reached the point of conspiracy against his otherwise faithful subject, so David fl ed into the wilderness for the life of an outlaw. David was on the run constantly. His pursuers cornered him at least three times, but each time he miraculously escaped. He showed magnanimity when he rejected easy opportunities to slay King Saul. Eventually he accepted his lot as an outlaw and recruited a band of other fugitives who took up banditry with him in the Judaean hills. In fact, the Bible portrays him as a kind of Robin Hood who protects his own kinfolk and their livestock, while he harasses those foreign armies who trespass Israel’s lands. The next move took him to the land of Israel’s enemies, the Philistines. Here he took up with a local king who provided him safe haven for his looting and marauding in the area. In return, David committed his band of outlaws to help the Philistines. When his services brought him to fi ght against his own king and countrymen, the other local Philistine kings refused to accept him. Thus, he was spared the dilemma of killing his own people or killing his foreign hosts. The result of the battle was that Saul took his own life when his army lost. David became king of Judah, his home area, but it was several more years of fi ghting until he can become David 109 king of the northern kingdom of Israel. His first base was Hebron, a symbolic place where the Patriarchs’ tombs are located. The war between Saul’s followers and David went on for another two to three years. With the death of Saul’s son and general, the northern region finally succumbed. In a brilliantly wise move David vacated his capital and conquered a city in a neighboring region, renaming this new location Jerusalem, or City of David (not the city favored by Judah or Israel). From Jerusalem the expansion of the kingdom began. By the end of David’s life the empire extended from ancient Egypt to the Euphrates (present-day Iraq). He won systematic victories over every army that opposed him. If this description is accurate, it means that for the first time in history, Israel was truly a world power with which to be reckoned. At the same time David showed his religious zeal when he brought the Ark of the Covenant into his capital. A temple was not built until the reign of his son Solomon. However, the Ark tied David to Moses and the covenant elaborated on Mount Sinai and as the most primitive symbol of worship connected David to the cult (temple, sacrifice, and priest). In these otherwise halcyon years the cataclysmic lapse of David’s judgment occurred when he committed adultery with Bathsheba and then tried to cover it up by arranging for the death of her husband, Uriah. As the kingdom expanded, David’s house collapsed. Within a few years the corruption of David’s house caused the unraveling of the kingdom: His daughter Tamar was raped, his son Absalom rebelled and was killed in battle, the northern part of his kingdom (Israel) attempted to secede under Sheba, and finally his two sons Adonijah and Solomon schemed and manipulated David for control of his kingdom. See also Christianity, early; Egypt, culture and religion; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Psalms. Further reading: de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel. Vol. 1: Social Institutions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965; Howard, David M. “David.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, edited by David N. Freeman, 41–49. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Mark F. Whitters Delphic oracle The Delphic oracle provided wisdom and advice to many ancient Greeks, and it continues to stir modern imagination regarding its verity and nature. According to archaeological evidence, the first temple of the site appeared in the eighth century b.c.e. However, some have argued that its history is even longer and that it may have existed in a different location at an earlier date. Its origins are shrouded in myth, as the sources regarding the Delphic oracle are scarce and are largely of a literary variety. The earliest written account with respect to the Delphic oracle’s emergence says that Apollo had come to Delphi—an area originally known as Pytho that had belonged to the earth goddess Gaia—and upon his arrival he killed the great python-dragon. Having destroyed the site’s guardian, Apollo established the location as a sanctuary, which was later to bear his temple. Inside the walls of the sacred house resided a human priestess, or Pythia, through whom Apollo spoke. The Greeks believed that the temple’s location was the center of the universe. Set beneath the “shining rocks” of Mount Parnassus it was consulted by many individuals who ranged in importance. Initially, it was strictly statesmen of great power and other political representatives who visited the oracle; however, later in the oracle’s history wise philosophers as well as common citizens sought knowledge and advice at Apollo’s sanctuary. The remains of the final temple of this once greatly prestigious and respected oracle can still be visited; however, Apollo’s voice at Delphi grew silent during the fourth century b.c.e. The role of religion and divination in the life and politics of the ancient Greeks is a complex and elaborate one. It was hardly separable from daily existence, and it is difficult to understand the politics of the time without acknowledging early Greek religiosity. In fact, the very notion of citizenship was often defined by way of religion and cult. Moreover, some scholars have argued that the Delphic oracle, and other sources of divination, played an influential part during the period of Greek colonization. Colonies were typically established by an individual founder (oikistes), who would consult an oracle for endorsement for the excursion, the location, and the justification of his leadership. By extension the Greek oracles helped with the emergence and maintenance of the various Greek citystates (poleis). The oracular tradition of consultation was particularly important during times of political instability, as the words of the Pythia were used as a tool to eliminate social disorder. Although the oracle’s responses did not substitute for decision making, they served as a means by which consensus or justification for a particular opinion or resolution was established. Because it was located outside the walls of the specific city-states that consulted it, the oracle was deemed nonpartisan and could therefore 110 Delphic oracle be trusted. However, some sources discuss bribery and gift giving either as a means to infl uence the Pythia’s prophecies or as an attempt to discover what advice was given to an enemy. A sort of informal type of diplomacy took place at Apollo’s sanctuary. The oracle only granted divination sessions once a month and for only nine months out of the year. As a result numerous state representatives would have gathered at the site simultaneously. Some of the earliest regions to have sought its advice were Corinth, Chalkis, and Sparta. By the late seventh and early sixth centuries b.c.e. Athens was also consulting Apollo at Delphi. However, during the sixth and fi fth centuries b.c.e. other popular oracles arose at Dodona, Didyma, and Ammon, giving rise to greater choice for divine consultation. The rivalry between the various oracles was also representative of the hierarchy of gods and their respective popularity. Delphi, and by extension Apollo, remained a favorite of many Greeks for quite some time. Only with the emergence of Alexander the Great, who initiated the imperial age and the collapse of the Greek poleis, did the oracle of Delphi begin to fall out of favor. The concurrent decline of the oracle and the city-states further provides evidence for their important reciprocal relationship. There is still debate surrounding what exactly took place during a consultation at Delphi and in what manner the response of Apollo was delivered by the Pythia. Fantastical accounts claim that the Pythia mounted a tripod and after inhaling fumes that rose from a chasm in the earth, she was sent into a frenzy or trance and uttered unintelligible words. The attendant priests translated the utterances and delivered a clarifi ed version to the inquirer. However, a more rational portrayal in contrasting scholarship describes the Pythia fi lled with the divine breath (pneuma) or wisdom of the god, whereupon she replied with great clarity to questions asked both orally and in written form. One account of a former priest instead describes the Pythia as being peaceful and composed after the sessions. Delphic oracle 111 In a reproduction of a 19th-century painting, a priestess from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi performs ceremonies to consult the oracle. The Delphic oracle gave advice from the temple beneath the rocks of Mount Parnassus in Greece. A number of the recorded responses received at Delphi have been preserved, and modern scholars have divided them up into categories ranging from the historical to the fi ctional. Due to problems in translation and the vagary regarding the context within which many messages were delivered, some of the recorded prophecies are less plausible and even incoherent. Given the nature of such pronouncements on behalf of a god, the authenticity of any of the claims cannot be completely verifi ed. For the most part the responses followed a set of stages. The Pythia would begin by declaring that the message should be taken seriously, reminding those present that the source was Apollo himself. Next, she would acknowledge the seeker on behalf of the god and express a degree of interest and concern. This would be followed by the Pythia’s answer. She would invariably conclude with a message that was intentionally challenging insofar as it demanded some further interpretation and thought. Although some have alleged that the responses were entirely arbitrary and ambiguous, others have understood the complexity differently. The argument follows that the power of personal judgment and intuition were very important and necessary virtues in order to insightfully comprehend the Pythia’s prophecies. In fact, the often-quoted injunction “Know Thyself” was inscribed in the lintel over the temple’s entrance. Without a certain amount of personal knowledge, it would be diffi cult for an individual to interpret correctly advice or wisdom. The ancient Greeks took the wisdom of Apollo and his priestesses seriously for many years and continued to return despite the fact that the responses were not delivered in a cut-and-dry fashion. Although we are left with little more than hypotheses as to how exactly many of the prophesies were interpreted and what impact they might have truly had, there is little doubt that the mystery surrounding Delphi has remained enchanting for the modern mind as individuals today likewise strive for wisdom and truth. See also Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric. Further reading: Fontenrose, Joseph. The Delphic Oracle. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978; Hart, Eloise. “The Delphic Oracle.” Sunrise Magazine (October/November 1985); Malkin, Irad. Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece. New York: E. J. Brill, 1987; Morgan, Catherine. Athletes and Oracles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Park, H. W. Greek Oracles. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1967. Trevor Shelley Demosthenes (384–322 b.c.e.) Greek orator Demosthenes was the most famous orator of ancient Athens and a principal voice in the attempt to maintain democracy in the face of the threat of the tyrannical Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great. He is remembered largely because of the many speeches he left behind. Many details of the life and times of Demosthenes are recorded in Plutarch’s biography. Demosthenes was the son of a sword maker of some substance, but after his father died, he passed into the care of a series of guardians who cheated him of most of his inheritance. His desire to sue one of his guardians inspired Demosthenes to take his fi rst steps toward becoming a public speaker. As a young man, he suffered from a frail physique and a weak, stammering voice. To overcome these problems he supposedly sucked pebbles in his mouth while using his voice to compete with the noise of the sea. Demosthenes was highly renowned for his speechmaking, and his services were in great demand. He struggled to build his reputation and achieved it in part as a speechwriter for those fi ling lawsuits and spoke in public to plead their case. By the age of 30 he had begun to make speeches to the full Athenian assembly (Ekklesia), most notably in connection with the need for Athens to build its naval defenses against a possible resumption of invasion attempts by the Persians. Demosthenes argued the importance of independence and the use of defensive alliances to deter attacks. Demosthenes made his reputation with speeches that have become known as the Philippics, the orations against Philip of Macedon and the threat the Macedonians represented to Athenian democracy. These were made in the bear-pit atmosphere of the Ekklesia, which was notorious for the rough nature of debate and audience participation. His success led to him becoming one of the most important men in Athens. His position was consistently in favor of independence, and he was frequently in confl ict with interests that would have accepted infringement of civil liberties for the sake of economic development. When Philip’s army started to threaten Athens in earnest, the debate became ever more vociferous. Confl ict was avoided primarily because Philip judged the time not yet ripe. Peaceful relations became increasingly strained as the well-organized and -led Macedonian forces took over ever-greater parts of Greek territory. Ultimately, a pretext arose for Philip to bring the Greeks to battle at Chaeronea, and he delivered a crushing defeat on them. Plutarch claims Demosthenes dropped his arms 112 Demosthenes and ran away from the battle. Even so, Demosthenes was elected to give the funeral orations and continued to speak in the Ekklesia against Macedonia. When pro-Macedonian support waxed after the accession of Alexander, Aeschines took the opportunity to bring a case that he anticipated would destroy Demosthenes’ reputation. However, in denying charges of corruption, cowardice, and wrong headedness in a speech known as “On the Crown,” Demosthenes routed his opponent, who was subsequently forced to accept exile. This vindication of both his personal integrity and his policies lasted only a few more years. In 324 b.c.e. Demosthenes was convicted of accepting a bribe and was fi ned and imprisoned. He subsequently escaped and was even invited back to Athens two years later. However, faced with the opposition of Aeschines, Demosthenes took poison and died. Demosthenes is best remembered for his oratory and some aspects of his political beliefs. See also Athenian predemocracy; Greek oratory and rhetoric. Further reading: Demosthenes. Demosthenes: Selected Private Speeches. Ed. by Christopher Carey and R. A. Reid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985; Hansen, Mogens Herman. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999; Plutarch. Plutarch: Lives of the Noble Greeks. Ed. by Edmund Fuller. New York: Dell Publishing, 1959. John Walsh Desert Fathers and Mothers The designation “Desert Fathers and Mothers” refers to sources of ascetic literature from late antiquity that are associated with monasticism principally in the deserts of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Arabia. Monasticism, which sought physical removal from the inhabited world, quickly identifi ed with the uninhabited desert as a refuge from temptation and as a hostile environment in which to train the body and the mind toward the single goal of serving God. The literature that captured the central ideas of those who had renounced and withdrawn from the world consists of practical advice for monks, primarily solitaries, including those who might not have access to an experienced teacher. The essential example of this literature consists of the Apophthegmata Patrum, or The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. This collection circulated in the East and West in three different editions and was translated into a number of languages before the Middle Ages. One edition is attributed to Poemen of Egypt, as are several of the sayings in the collection. It is possible that sayings attributed to Poemen by his disciples were the kernel around which the rest of the collection grew. Other Desert Fathers include Anthony, Pachomius, Ammun, and Bishoi, all of Egypt, and Hilarion and Abba Isaiah of Palestine. Sarah and Syncletica are two of the names of several Desert Mothers whose sayings have been preserved. In the version of the Sayings that is arranged alphabetically by the name of the father or mother, there are some 134 names. Those fathers and mothers who can be dated are all from the third and fourth centuries c.e., and refl ect preclassical Christian monasticism. The literature consists of short and direct statements on different topics. Topics include vigilance, self-control, humility, fasting, and prayer. The role of the the spiritual father (abba) or mother (amma) was essential to the perspective of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. The abba or amma was not a discussion partner or counsel but a source of wisdom, whose advice the novice was to put into practice. Rather than theological speculation, the abba’s or amma’s advice is the epitome of simplicity and common sense. This advice was always specifi c to the individual and, hence, was based on the abba’s or amma’s knowledge of his or her novice. Each monk or nun must experience his or her own path of spiritual progress. The Desert Fathers and Mothers as the source of this wisdom were thus held not as strict models to be imitated but rather pioneers from whose mistakes and discoveries later generations could profi t. This literature was intended to complement the rule of a monastery and church legislation designed to ensure a stable institution, regulating the life of the monastic community so that each of its members could proceed on their individual Christcentered spiritual path. The practical approach to questions taken by these authorities was refl ected in every aspect of the monk’s or nun’s work, the goal of which was to fi nd God. The Desert Fathers and Mothers are presented as champions of asceticism. Asceticism entailed fasting and the control of the passions as well as the struggle with demons both within and without, but the end of this work was to become humble, quiet, and vigilant in order to serve God and neighbor, to listen for and to the Word of God, and to trust in God alone. See also Benedict; Christianity, early. Desert Fathers and Mothers 113 Further reading: Gould, Graham. The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993; Ward, Benedicta, trans. The Desert Fathers: Sayings of the Early Christian Monks. New York: Penguin Books, 2003. Robert R. Phenix, Jr., and Cornelia Horn Deuteronomy The last book of the Pentateuch is the book of Deuteronomy. Its importance lies in the fact that it is often thought to present the theology that typifi es and organizes the next group of biblical books, from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. This latter group of books in effect represents biblical history as seen from the perspective of the editor of Deuteronomy and is called Deuteronomic History (DH). Martin Noth fi rst made the claim concerning this particular biblical perspective, but now it is the consensus of most scholars of Israelite history and religion. Deuteronomy comes from the Greek term meaning the “second law.” The law in this book then is a reformulation of the Torah law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but it is not really the classic formulation of legal code. Rather, it is expressed as if it were a sermon or homily, not action-oriented but attitude-oriented. Throughout the book of Deuteronomy are speeches and exhortations that stir up the reader to stay faithful to the Jewish law given to Moses, especially the law of monotheistic worship. The book consists of three speeches, plus some appended materials at the end, all purporting to be the last will and words of Moses given before entrance to the promised land of Canaan. Some speculate that the fi rst four chapters display an introduction to the whole DH, while the next few chapters provide an introduction to the book of Deuteronomy. The book, perhaps in its primitive form, was apparently lost for a while, but it was recovered by King Josiah of Judah in 621 b.c.e., who tried to bring about the sort of revival envisioned by the later writer(s) of the DH. According to scholars, the DH starts with the material of Deuteronomy and crafts the subsequent narrative, speeches, annals, and records so that the reader never loses sight of the same lesson. They notice a repetition of language, style, and theme throughout the subsequent books of the Jewish scriptures until 2 Kings, and they believe that there is a deliberate purpose and editorial design that qualify all the books to be called the Deuteronomic History. Basically the DH tends to take a pessimistic view of Israel’s history: Israel’s behavior is frequently unfaithful to its divine covenant as expressed in the laws of the Torah, especially in the area of idolatry. If this hypothesis is accurate, DH probably qualifi es as an early effort to produce a canon of the Bible. Throughout the book of Deuteronomy is the caution not to add to or take away from the written words, a natural injunction if the book is thought of as canonical. Scholars differ as the date of Deuteronomy and DH, but most tend to read it as an edited collection written after Nebuchadnezzar II’s expulsion of the people of Israel in 587 b.c.e. David Noel Freedman sees Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, as the one responsible, but others simply fi nd a perspective that represents the north (of the Israel and Judah divide) and the prophets found there. This canon would stand in contrast to two other strands of the Bible discerned by scholars, namely, the Priestly books (largely the Torah) and the Chronicler books (the later histories of the Bible and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah). Because the DH is a rather late compilation, it would frequently represent in veiled ways the Babylonian captivity. In fact, there are passages in other books, not in the DH, which refl ect the attitudes of the DH. See also Judaism, early (heterodoxies). Further reading: McKenzie, Steven L. “Deuteronomistic History.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992; Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Mark F. Whitters Dharma Sutras The Dharma Sutras are manuals on correct behavior inspired by the Vedas and which exist in a number of different formats and styles. Many of the numerous verses within the Dharma Sutras consider such topics as appropriate dietary behavior, the duties and rights of kings and rulers, and suitable forms of behavior for people of different ranks in various circumstances. Some sutras were developed and codifi ed into shastras, which are more established frameworks of rules that were used to create Hindu laws. The principal Dharma Sutra is considered to be the Manu-smrti (The Laws of Manu), which was created around 200 c.e. (although probably begun earlier) and consists of 12 chapters with a total of 2,694 verses. The contents range from practical prescriptions for funerary and dietary practices to legal systems and religious 114 Deuteronomy strictures. This sutra acted as the law that governed the societies of much of India for a number of centuries. This led to the four-caste conception of society and the social structure that underlay the whole of Hindu society. The fundamental structure of society, therefore, has integrated within it the notions of hell, heaven, and the proper behavior of the individual as a member within a designated caste. Another sutra of great infl uence and prestige was written by Yajnavalkya and has just over 1,000 verses arranged in areas relating to the law, expiation, and methods of good conduct. This makes the canon rather lengthy in nature, and it contains disparate elements that would seem irrational from the Western point of view. However, the Hindu conception of the universe is able to reconcile these elements, so far as they are fully aware of them, into a coherent whole. The Dharma Sutras are combined with the Srauta Sutras (dealing with sacrifi cial rituals) and the Grhya Sutras (dealing with domestic rituals) to make up the Kalpa Sutra, which is a manual of religious practice written in a short and aphoristic style that facilitates committing the material to memory. Each school of the Vedas had its own Kalpa Sutra, and each Kalpa Sutra is one of the six vedangas, the canon of religious and philosophical literature, descended from the Vedas. They are created by humans and hence have the name smrti, or “tradition.” See also Hindu philosophy; Vedic age. Further reading: Banerjee, Sures Chandra. Dharma Sutras: A Study in Their Origin and Development. Calcutta, India: Punthi Pustak, 1962; Carpenter, David. “Language, Ritual and Society: Refl ections on the Authority of the Veda in India.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion. (v.60/1, 1992); Jamison, Stephanie W. “Rhinoceros Toes, Manu V.17–18, and the Development of the Dharma System.” Journal of the American Oriental Society (v.118, 1998); Yajnavalkya. Yajnavalkya’s Smriti: With the Commentary of Vijnanesvara, Called the Mitaksara and the Gloss of Balambhatta. Edited by Srisa Chandra Vasu. New York: AMS Press, 1973. John Walsh Diadochi Diadochi is the Greek word for “successors” and refers the successors of the empire of Alexander the Great. At fi rst there was initial agreement to the unity of the empire, but this soon turned into wars between rival rulers. These included Macedon, Egypt under Ptolemy as Africa, and the Near East under Seleucus as Asia. DEATH OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT Alexander the Great died on June 11, 323 b.c.e., in Babylon. His leading generals met in discussion. Alexander had a half brother, Arridaeus, but he was illegitimate and an epileptic and thought unfi t to rule. Perdiccas, general of the cavalry, stated that Alexander’s wife, Roxane, was pregnant. If a boy was born, then he would become king. Alexander had named Perdiccas successor as regent, until the child was of age. The other generals opposed this idea. Nearchus, commander of the navy, pointed out that Alexander had a three-year-old son, Heracles, with his former concubine Barsine. The other generals opposed this because Nearchus was married to Barsine’s daughter and related to the young possible king. Ptolemy wanted a joint leadership and deemed that the empire needed fi rm government and jointly the generals could assure this. Some thought that a collective leadership could lead to a division of the empire. Meleager, the commander of the pikemen, opposed the idea. He wanted Arridaeus as king to unite the empire. The fi nal decision was to appoint Perdiccas as regent for Arridaeus, who would become Philip III, and if Roxane gave birth to a boy, he would take precedence and become King Alexander IV. Alexander’s father, Philip of Macedon, had led his armies south and conquered all of Greece. Alexander was king of Macedon and Greece and had left a general there to rule. The Greeks saw that Alexander and his generals had taken on the customs of their hated enemies, the Persians. The people of Athens and other Greek cities staged revolts as soon as they heard that Alexander had died. Antipater led forces south and battled in what would became the Lamian War. Craterus arrived with reinforcements. Craterus led the Macedonians to victory against the Greeks at the Battle of Crannon on September 5, 322 b.c.e. As the Macedonians captured Athens, Demosthenes, the leader of the revolt, died by taking poison. FIRST DIADOCH WAR Perdiccas ruled as regent, and there was peace for a time. His fi rst war was with Ariarathes, who ruled in Cappadocia in the central part of modern-day Turkey. The First Diadoch War broke out in 322 b.c.e., when Craterus and Antipater in Macedonia refused to follow the orders of Perdiccas. Knowing that war would come, the Macedonians allied with Ptolemy of Egypt. Perdiccas invaded Egypt and tried to cross the Nile, but many Diadochi 115 of his men were swept away. When Perdiccas called together his commanders Peithon, Antigenes, and Seleucus for a new war strategy, they instead killed him and ended the civil war. They offered to make Ptolemy the regent of the empire, but he was content with Egypt and declined. Ptolemy suggested that Peithon be regent, which annoyed Antipater of Macedon. Negotiations were held and succession was fi nally decided: Antipater became regent; Roxane’s son, who had just been born, was named Alexander IV. They would live in Macedonia, where Antipater would rule the empire. His ally Lysimachus would rule Thrace, and Ptolemy would remain satrap of Egypt. Of Perdiccas’s commanders, Seleucus would become satrap of Babylonia, and Peithon would rule Media. Antigonus, in charge of the army of Perdiccas, was in control of Asia Minor. SECOND DIADOCH WAR War was again initiated when Antipater died in 319 b.c.e. He had appointed a general called Polyperchon to succeed him as regent. At this, his son, Cassander, organized a rebellion against Polyperchon. With war breaking out Ptolemy had his eye on Syria, which had historically belonged to Egypt. There was an alliance between Cassander, Ptolemy, and Antigonus of Asia Minor, who had designs against the new ruler Polyperchon. Ptolemy then attacked Syria. Polyperchon, desperate for allies, offered the Greek cities the possibility of autonomy, but this did not gain him many troops. Cassander invaded Macedonia but was defeated. During this fi ghting the mother of Alexander, Olympias, was executed in 316 b.c.e. Polyperchon had the support of Eumenes, an important Macedonian general. Polyperchon attempted to ally with Seleucus of Babylon. Seleucus refused, and the satraps of the eastern provinces decided not to be involved. Antigonus, in June 316 b.c.e., moved into Persia and engaged the forces of Eumenes at the Battle of Paraitacene, which was indecisive. Another battle near Gabae, where the fi ghting was also indecisive, led to the murder of Eumenes at the end of the fi ghting. This left Antigonus in control of all of the Asian part of the former empire. To cement his hold over the empire, he invited Peithon of Media and then had him executed. Seleucus, seeing that he would no longer have control over Babylon, fl ed to Egypt. THIRD DIADOCH WAR Antigonus Monophthalmus was now powerful and had control of Asia. Worried about an invasion of Egypt, Ptolemy started plotting with Lysimachus of Thrace and Cassander of Macedonia. Together they demanded that Antigonus hand over the royal treasury he had seized and hand back many of his lands. He refused, and in 314 b.c.e. war broke out. Antigonus attacked Syria and tried to capture Phoenicia. He lay siege to the city of Tyre for 15 months. Meanwhile, Seleucus took Cyprus. On the diplomatic front Antigonus demanded that Cassander explain how Olympias had died and what had happened to Alexander IV and his mother, in whose name Cassander held rule. Antigonus made an alliance with Polyperchon, who held southern Greece. Ptolemy sent his navy to attack Cilicia, the south coast of what is now Turkey, in the summer of 312 b.c.e. With his forces in Syria, Ptolemy worried that Egypt might be attacked and retreated. Seleucus, who was a commander in the Ptolemaic army, marched to Babylon and was recognized as satrap in mid-311 b.c.e.; the previous satrap, Peithon, was killed at Gaza. Antigonus realized that he could not defeat Ptolemy and his allies. A truce was agreed to in December 311 b.c.e. Cassander held Macedonia until Alexander IV came of age six years later; Lysimachus kept Thrace and the Chersonese (modern-day Gallipoli); Ptolemy had Egypt, Palestine, and Cyprus; Antigonus held Asia Minor; and Seleucus gained everything east of the river Euphrates to India. The following year (310 b.c.e.), Cassander murdered both the young Alexander IV and his mother, Roxane. Peace lasted until 308 b.c.e. when Demetrius, a son of Antigonus, attacked Cyprus at the Battle of Salamis. He then attacked Greece, where he captured Athens and many other cities and then marched on Ptolemy. Antigonus sent Nicanor against Bablyon, but Seleucus defeated him. Seleucus used this opportunity to capture Ecbatana, the capital of Nicanor. Antigonus then sent Demetrius against Seleucus, and he besieged Babylon. Eventually, the forces of Antigonus and Seleucus met on the battlefi eld. Seleucus ordered a predawn attack and forced Antigonus to retreat to Syria. Seleucus sent troops ahead, but with little threat from the West he attacked Bactria and northern India. When Antigonus attacked Syria and headed to Egypt, his column was attacked by the troops sent by Seleucus. FOURTH DIADOCH WAR In 307 b.c.e. the Fourth Diadoch War broke out. Antigonus was facing a powerful Seleucus to his east and Ptolemy to the south. Egypt was secure with the protection of a large navy. Ptolemy attacked Greece, motivated largely by a desire to ensure that Athens and other cities did not support Antigonus. 116 Diadochi Demetrius in a diversion attacked Cyprus and continued with his siege of Salamis. This pulled Ptolemy out of Greece, and his navy headed to Cyprus. Ptolemy lost many of his men and ships. Menelaus surrendered Cyprus in 306 b.c.e., once again giving Antigonus control of the city. Antigonus proclaimed himself successor to Alexander the Great. Antigonus did not view Seleucus as a threat, so instead marched against Ptolemy. His army ran out of supplies and was forced to withdraw. Demetrius had attacked the island of Rhodes, held by Ptolemy. Ptolemy was able to supply Rhodes from the sea, and so Demetrius withdrew. Cassander, then attacked Athens. In 301 b.c.e. Cassander, aided by Lysimachus, invaded Asia Minor, fi ghting the army of Antigonus and Demetrius, with Cassander capturing Sardis and Ephesus. Hearing that Antigonus was leading an army, Cassander withdrew to Ipsus, near Phrygia, and asked Ptolemy and Seleucus for support. Ptolemy heard a rumor that Cassander had been defeated and withdrew to Egypt. Seleucus realized that this might be the opportunity to destroy Antigonus. Earlier he had concluded a peace agreement with King Chandragupta II, in the Indus Valley, and had been given a large number of war elephants. Seleucus marched to support Cassander. Hearing of his approach, Antigonus sent an army to Babylon hoping to divert Seleucus. Seleucus marched his men to Ipsus and joined Lysimachus. There, in 301 b.c.e., a large battle ensued. Seleucus, with his elephants, launched a massive attack that won the battle. Antigonus was killed on the battlefi eld, but Demetrius escaped. This left Seleucus and Lysimachus in control of the whole of Asia Minor. Seleucus and Lysimachus agreed that Cassander would be king of Macedonia, but he died the following year. Demetrius had escaped to Greece, attacking Macedonia and, seven years later, killed a son of Cassander. A new ruler had emerged, Pyrrhus of Epirus, an ally of Ptolemy. He attacked Macedonia and the forces of Demetrius. Demetrius repelled the attack and was nominated as king of Macedonia but had to give up Cilicia and Cyprus. Ptolemy urged on Pyrrhus, who attacked Macedonia in 286 b.c.e. and drove Demetrius from the kingdom, aided by an internal revolt. Demetrius fl ed from Europe in 286 b.c.e. With his men he attacked Sardis again. Lysimachus and Seleucus attacked him, and Demetrius surrendered and was taken prisoner by Seleucus. He later died in prison. This left Lysimachus and Pyrrhus fi ghting for possession of Europe, while Ptolemy and Seleucus owned rest of the former empire. Ptolemy abdicated to his son Ptolemy Philadelphus. An older son, Ptolemy Keraunos, sought help from Seleucus to try to take over Egypt. Ptolemy died in January 282 b.c.e. In 281 b.c.e. Ptolemy Keraunos, decided that it would be easier to take Macedonia rather than to attack Egypt. He and Seleucus attacked Lysimachus, killing him at the Battle of Corus in February 281 b.c.e. Ptolemy Keraunos then returned to Asia, and prior to leaving for Macedonia again in 280 b.c.e., he murdered Seleucus. By the end of the Diadochi wars, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, ruled Greece; Ptolemy II Philadelphus was king of Egypt; and Antiochus I, son of Seleucus, ruled much of western Asia. Ptolemy Keraunos held the lands of Lysander in Thrace. The Diadochi wars came to an end with the death of Seleucus, but wars between the kingdoms continued. See also Babylon: early period; Egypt, culture and religion; Ptolemies. Further reading: Bosworth, A. B. The Legacy of Alexander the Great: Politics, Warfare and Propaganda under the Successors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002; Doherty, Paul. Alexander the Great: The Death of a God. London: Constable, 2004; Kincaid, C. A. Successors of Alexander the Great. Chicago: Ares, 1985; Paveley, J. D. Lysimachos, the Diadoch. Ph.D. thesis, University of Swansea, Wales, 1988. Justin Corfi eld Diocletian (c. 245–c. 316 c.e.) Roman emperor The emperor Diocletian was born Diocles on the coast of the Roman province of Dalmatia, which lies on the western shore of the Balkans. Born in the early years of the “Military Anarchy,” Diocles witnessed the collapse of the empire into a series of civil wars, leaving Rome splintered in the face of a continuous front of enemies. The emperors were continually on the defensive. By the time of Valerian’s rise in 253 c.e., Germanic tribes overran the Rhine and Danube frontiers. The Sassanid Empire of Persia would take advantage of this situation by overrunning the Romans in Syria and retaking Antioch. Valerian moved against the Persians and was able to retake Antioch, but in a terrible Roman defeat, Valerian’s army was surrounded at Edessa in 259. The emperor was led into Persian captivity. Such political instability allowed a man like Diocles the opportunity to rise above the station of his birth. At a time when military powers were struggling for control of the fragile Roman Empire, the status of a soldier was enhanced. After 260, Gallenius had stripped senators of Diocletian 117 their right to command legions and the sons of senators of their rank of deputy tribune. These positions were given to career soldiers, thus opening opportunities for advancement in the rank and fi le. Diocles was either a freed slave or the son of a freed slave, and his education was extremely limited. Diocles joined the imperial army before 270 and in less than two decades rose far. In the 270s mention was made of Diocles being commander of a sizable military unit on the lower Danube, roughly modern-day Bulgaria. Descriptions vary, but they agree that Diocles lacked natural heroic bravado. Rather, he set himself to military tasks with cautious and cool precision, showing himself to be a better leader than soldier. In 282 the legions of the upper Danube declared the Praetorian prefect Carus emperor, and before the emperor Probus could respond, his own soldiery killed Probus. Diocles’ role in the coup is unclear, but under Carus’s short reign he rose to the highest levels of military leadership. Carus elevated Diocles to command of the protectores domestici, the elite force that accompanied the emperor into battle. This gave Diocles intimate access to Carus, and he was made a consul in 283. Following Carus’s sudden death, his son, Numerian, was named emperor, and Numerian’s father-in-law and the prefect, Aper, began gathering military power. In 284 Numerian died, and Aper, who had charge over him, was arrested by soldiers on suspicion of plotting against the emperor. The collected army leadership halted near Nicomedia, and in a ceremony the representatives of the military units elected Diocles emperor. Diocles’ fi rst act was the execution of Aper for Numerian’s murder. He then took the name Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus. Diocletian still needed to subdue Numerian’s brother, Carinus, who controlled the western provinces of Rome. Constantius, the governor of Dalmatia, supported Diocletian, and Carinus was weakened by the revolt of one of his military leaders, Sabinus Julianus. When the battle between Carinus and Diocletian took place near Belgrade in 285, Diocletian was nearly defeated when his armies’ lines were broken. But Carinus’s forces did not take advantage of their battle gains and soon discovered that Carinus was dead. Tired of battle, the soldiers of Carinus’s armies swore allegiance to Diocletian, who became sole ruler—Augustus of Rome. In order to overcome simultaneous military emergencies continuing to befall the Roman Empire, Diocletian adopted the younger general Maximian as heir and elevated him to the status of Caesar, a powerful and historic position inferior to the status of the Augustus. While Maximian was ambitious and able, he was a soldier of little political imagination, making him the least likely of Diocletian’s supporters to attempt to seize power. Maximian, now legal son of Diocletian and a Caesar with armies, was charged with restoring Roman authority in Gaul and the West. A revolt in Britain soon necessitated a more drastic measure. When Carausius, a general in Britain and Gaul, was declared Augustus by his armies and challenged the mere Caesar, Maximian, Diocletian boldly elevated his adopted son Maximian to the status of Augustus. Diocletian and Maximian, both soldiers commanding armies, held real power in their dual rule. Under their leadership the question of dividing the empire into opposed states never arose, and this reform in government would play a central role in Rome’s recovery. The two emperors could now face their enemies simultaneously in the north and east and take advantage of the fact that the fronts were composed of small, independent armies. Diocletian sought to establish his capital in Nicomedia. After the fi rst fi ve years of the dual rule, Diocletian set about to further cement the government and made reforms that would consolidate advances made to secure Rome after its long decline. Diocletian fi rst moved to establish the Tetrarchy in order to secure succession to the throne and maintain orderly dual rule. In the Tetrarchy each Augustus would adopt into his family a Caesar as junior partner. After a decade the two Augusti would retire in favor of the Caesars, who would in turn each adopt a Caesar. Beyond the military and governance reforms of the establishment of the Tetrarchy, Diocletian reformed the military structure, establishing frontier forces that provided defense, with a mobile reserve force maintained more centrally. When hot spots fl ared, the reserves could reinforce the frontier armies. The power of military leadership was divided in an attempt to reduce their threat to imperial authority. Diocletian’s rebuilding projects and investments in infrastructure can be seen as part of a larger plan for economic reform. Availability of goods, such as food and materials, was improved when they could more easily be transported across the empire. However, rampant infl ation was hard to control, and Diocletian engaged in an attempt at price fi xing. His Edict on Maximum Prices, while ultimately failing to control prices and infl ation, was a serious attempt at controlling runaway infl ation, with some offenses punishable by death. Perhaps under the infl uence of Galerius, who was known to be opposed to Christianity, Diocletian’s rule continued Rome’s persecutions of the Christian religion. Begun in 303, this wave of persecution would cease only in 312. A series of edicts commanded that 118 Diocletian churches and scriptures be destroyed and that church leaders be imprisoned. Many of Diocletian’s reforms, such as the Tetrarchy, did not long survive his retirement in 305. Upon his retirement, he became the fi rst living emperor to leave offi ce of his own accord. The Tetrarchy did manage to halt Rome’s slide into anarchy, and the rule of the Tetrarchs renewed Roman frontier defenses. See also Christianity, early; Diadochi; Rome: government. Further reading: Barnes, Timothy. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982; Corcoran, Simon. The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, AD 284–324. New York: Clarendon Press, 1996; Rees, Roger. Diocletian and the Tetrarchy. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 2004; Southern, Pat. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. New York: Routledge, 2001; Williams, Stephen. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London: Metheun, 1985. James A. Grady Dravidians This term has traditionally been applied to groups from the Indian subcontinent that speak Dravidian languages: Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Brahui, and Tulu. Most of these linguistic groups live in the southern portion of the subcontinent. The word Dravidian comes from the Sanskrit term dravida, which means “southern.” During the 19th century linguistic scholars began to realize that the Dravidian languages differed signifi cantly from many of those spoken in the north. Early anthropologists and sociologists began to suggest that the darker-skinned inhabitants of the subcontinent were the ones who predominantly spoke the Dravidian languages and that they in fact may have been the original inhabitants of India. Modern geneticists suggest that the color of skin may have had more to do with adapting to sunnier conditions in the southern part of India than actual racial differences. Theories concerning the darker-skinned Dravidians also played to issues of political, regional, caste, and religious strife in 19thcentury India. Notions of possible historical Dravidian displacement in the Indus River valley due to an invasion or migration began to be entertained by Western scholars who joined in interdisciplinary studies of the origins of the Hindu religion. Archaeological evidence from the 1920s concerning the ascension and demise of the ancient polytheistic Indus civilization (3500–1700 b.c.e.) gave rise to the theory of an invasion of the Indus region by lighter-skinned northern peoples, who began to be known as Aryans. In fact, there were a number of religion scholars like Bloch and Witzel who felt that Indus River valley inhabitants composed the oldest parts of the Rig-Veda. The Rig-Veda is the most ancient form of Hindu religious literature, dating in written form to around 800 b.c.e. and possibly stemming from oral formulas and prayers dating as far back as 2000 b.c.e. Even the ancient Puranas point to the Dravidians as being descended from the earliest Vedic peoples. (Elements of the Puranic oral traditions may date as early as 1500 b.c.e. but did not reach their fi nal written form until around 500 c.e.). The Matsya Puranas also indicate that the fi rst man, Manu, was a king from the southern part of India. Numerous attempts continued through the 20th century to connect the Dravidians to the Indus civilization. Scholars insisted that Hinduism emerged from a blending of Aryan and Dravidian culture. Many modern studies of the ancient Indus Valley civilization presumed that the inhabitants who occupied a wide range of ancient city-states all along the Indus (including the very large urban centers at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro) were all Dravidian. It is believed that more than 500 highly civilized centers, all inhabited before 900 b.c.e., were part of the network of Indus and Ghaggar Rivers. Their economy was supported by agriculture from the crops that grew from the rich deposits of soil along the Indus and its tributaries. However, most inhabitants of cities were artisans, merchants, or craftspersons. Many of the towns exhibit signs of urban planning with straight streets, sanitation systems, municipal governments, and even multilevel housing. Cities like Harappa even had dockyards, warehouses, granaries, and public baths. Meteorologists, archaeologists, and geologists claim that the collapse of the early Indus civilization was due to climactic and environmental issues, tectonic events, and most likely drought. One group then possibly resettled the Indus area, or several other groups migrated into the area. Given these hypotheses it is easy to see why the linguistic differences fi rst noticed by scholars in the mid-19th century could be explained by a northern invasion from settlers beyond the Khyber Pass and the eventual domination of the area by a lighter-skinned ruling class. How ever, there is a whole group of contemporary scholars who now think the Aryans may not have been Middle Eastern or European but were part of a group proximate to the Dravidians 119 Indian subcontinent all along. Some geneticists interpret the earliest settlement of India as connecting Middle Eastern peoples such as the Elamites with the Dravidians, to placing the Dravidian group as the last among ancient migrants into India behind other earlier Indo-European settlers and more ancient Australoid peoples. See also Elam. Further reading: Allchin, Bridget, and Raymond Allchin. The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; Bryant, Edwin. The Quest for the Origins of the Vedic Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; Chakrabarti, D. K. Indus Civilization Sites in India: New Discoveries. Mumbai, India: Marg Publications, 2004; Feuerstein, G., D. Frawley, and S. Kak, eds. In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 1999; Kenoyer, Mark. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Tim Davis Druids and Picts The Picts and the Druids were among the pre-Roman civilizations in the British Isles. There is little concrete information about either group, particularly prior to Roman contact. The Druids were the priests of many ancient Celtic societies, which included those in northwest Europe as well as the British Isles. The Druids were preservers and enforcers of tradition among these tribes, passing on an oral literature that did not survive the arrival of Rome and the decline of the Celtic languages and cultures. They were probably the most learned class among their people and may have passed on to the laity a good deal of practical knowledge in addition to the religious teachings of their polytheistic faith. Our written sources about the Druids are exclusively Roman. Gaius Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars ascribed to the Druids among the Gauls the authority to make judgments in disputes both civil and criminal and the use of exile as punishment. Other writers wrote of Druids telling fortunes, receiving instruction in secret, and overseeing sacrifices, including human sacrifices. They were almost certainly the keepers and designers of the calendar the Celtic tribes followed. Though they have long been associated with Stonehenge in the popular imagination, Stonehenge predates the Druids considerably, and they could not have had anything to do with its construction. It is primarily the result of historical fads in the 18th and 19th centuries that so many misconceptions about the Druids are lodged in popular thought, many of them the product of poor scholarship or outright fabrication. It is from that period that many “modern druidic movements” stem, some of them claiming an unbroken connection to the Druids of the Iron Age. Little, too, is known about the Picts, who inhabited Pictland (northern Scotland) from antiquity until the Middle Ages. A loosely affiliated, ethnically similar group of tribes, they confederated into a number of kingdoms (sometimes ruled over by a high king to whom others owed fealty) sometime after the arrival of Romans in the British Isles. Presumably, the Pictish religion, and perhaps its language, greatly resembled that of other Celtic groups before this time and converted in the fifth and sixth centuries. Once Christianity was entrenched, the cult of saints was especially prominent in Pictland, with patron saints associated not just with towns and kings as in much of Christendom but with noble families. Kingship generally passed from brother to brother before passing on to a son, favoring experienced leaders over a direct line of succession. The Picts are famous for their use of war paint and tattoos, and their name derives from the Latin word pingere, for “paint.” This may have been a myth, and it is unlikely they used woad (which takes poorly to skin) to dye themselves blue, as was once thought. The myth may have grown because of the fierceness of the pirates and raiders among the early Picts; such warriors tend to accumulate hearsay around them. See also Celts. Further reading: Aldhouse-Green, Miranda J. Exploring the World of the Druids. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997; Foster, Sally M. Picts, Gaels, and Scots: Early Historic Scotland. London: Batsford, 2004; Smyth, Alfred P. Warlords and Holy Men. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1984. Bill Kte’pi Duke of Zhou (Chou) (Regent 1116–1109 b.c.e.) Chinese ruler, mythological figure In Chinese tradition King Wen (the Accomplished), King Wu (the Martial), and the Duke of Zhou are revered as the wise founding fathers of the Zhou (Chou) dynasty (c. 1122–256 b.c.e.) and their era is considered a the golden age. King Wen prepared the way; King Wu overthrew the Shang dynasty but died shortly after, leaving his young son King Cheng (Ch’eng) un- 120 Druids and Picts der the care of his uncle, the Duke of Zhou, as regent. Soon after this event three other brothers of King Wu, who had been sent to govern the former Shang territories in the east, and the Shang prince who had been set up as nominal ruler of the Shang people, joined in rebellion. After two years of warfare the Duke of Zhou and his brother the Duke of Shao defeated the rebels. The Shang prince was killed, the Shang capital, Yin, was leveled, and another Shang prince was set up to rule another fi ef called Song (Sung) further east. The rebel Zhou princes were either killed or exiled. Thus ended the fi rst crisis of the new dynasty. The Duke of Zhou then pressed further east and brought all peoples to the coast under Zhou rule. The Zhou territory was larger than that of modern France. To consolidate the conquests the duke sent loyal relatives to establish strongholds in strategic locations and set up a second capital at Luoyang (Loyang), strategically located at the junction of the Luo (Lo) and Yellow Rivers. During the early Zhou era numerous walled cities were built, governed by relatives and supporters of the new dynasty, who gradually established control over the population. Their territories were called guo (kuo). The king ruled directly over the largest territory in the center of the political order, called Zhungguo (Chung-kuo) or the “central state,” which came to mean “China” and known to the West as the Middle Kingdom. The new rulers were given titles of rank, translated as duke (reserved for sons and brothers of the king), marquis, count, viscount, and baron. Together the nobles were referred to as “the various marquises.” Most of the nobles were related to the royal house either by blood or by marriage; they looked to the king as head of their vast extended family and the Zhou clan as their common ancestors. Many common features between these Zhou institutions and European medieval feudal institutions have led historians to call the early Zhou polity feudal. The Duke of Zhou is also credited with creating the well-fi eld system that equitably distributed farmland to cultivators; eight families grouped together farmed plots for themselves and together farmed the ninth one for their lord. The Duke of Zhou explained to the Shang people that the change of dynasties was the will of heaven, which punished the last Shang king for his wickedness and rewarded the house of Zhou for its virtue. He also lectured his nephew that the concept of “Mandate of Heaven” was a double-edged sword and could be cut when the personal and political conduct of the new rulers did not measure up to heaven’s expectations. After a seven-year regency, and having accomplished his mission, he returned power to his nephew and retired to his own fi ef called Lu in eastern Shandong (Shantung). See also Wen and Wu. Further reading: Chang, Kwang-chih. The Archaeology of Ancient China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986; Creel, Herrlee G. The Origin of Statecraft in China, Vol. 1, The Western Chou Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970; Gernet, Jacques. Ancient China from the Beginnings to the Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Dunhuang (Tun-huang) Dunhuang is located in present-day Gansu (Kansu) Province in northwestern China. It was strategically important to China and came under Chinese control under Emperor Wu around 120 b.c.e. during the Han dynasty. He stationed a garrison there to prevent two nomadic peoples, the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) and the Qiang (Chiang), from joining forces against the Chinese. The Han dynasty’s military successes resulted in the Pax Sinica, in which China dominated the eastern part of the Eurasian continent at the same time that the Roman Empire dominated the western end (Pax Romana). Trade prospered between China with Central Asia, India, Persia, and the Roman Empire via the famous Silk Road. The Silk Road’s eastern starting point was China’s capital, Chang’an (Ch’ang-an), and led across the Gansu Corridor to Dunhuang, the gateway city, after which it divided into a northern and southern branch across mountains and deserts until the two branches joined at Merv, then to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Dunhuang’s position at the intersection between Chinese, Indian, and Central Asian cultures made it important in China’s political and cultural history. Dunhuang’s richly furnished Han-era tombs prove its prosperity. The census of 1–2 c.e. shows that there were 11,200 registered households in the commandery with almost 40,000 persons. Merchants passed through Dunhuang with their wares, as did Buddhist missionaries and pilgrims en route to and from India and diplomats and armies from the courts of empires across Eurasia. Near to Dunhuang lies a mile-long strip of land intersected by a stream whose water made agriculture possible. Lying to the west of the stream is Mount Mingsha, where for a thousand years men carved cave temples called the Caves of the Thousand Buddhas (also called the Magao Caves). Dunhuang 121 122 Dunhuang Introduced from India, cave art in China is synonymous with religious art, especially Buddhist art. From Dunhuang the practice of excavating Buddhist cave temples spread to Datong (Ta-tung) in Shanxi (Shansi) Province and Luoyang in Henan (Honan) Province, the sites of the Yungang (Yun-kang) and Longmen (Lung-men) caves. But the Dunhuang caves stand out as the largest in size and of the longest in duration, spanning from around the beginning of the Common Era to the Yuan dynasty in the 13th century c.e. They were built by generations of pious people and decorated with paintings and sculpture. The grottos were adorned with murals over plaster and painted clay sculptures. Thousands of grottos were excavated, of which 492 remain; they show the evolution of Buddhist art style and the assimilation of styles from several cultures. Western explorers discovered the caves and a treasure trove of hidden ancient manuscripts at Dunhuang at the end of the 19th century. Many of the manuscripts and art treasures of Dunhuang were moved to Western museums; others were preserved in China. Dunhuang studies have added to knowledge of Buddhism and Chinese history and culture. See also cave paintings. Further reading: Dunhuang Institute for Cultural Relics. The Art Treasures of Dunhuang. New York: Lee Publishers, 1981; Mair, Victor. Tun-huang Popular Narratives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; Whitfi eld, Roderick, and Anne Farrer. Cave of the Thousand Buddhas: Chinese Art from the Silk Route. New York: George Braziller, 1990. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Damascene, John (c. 650–c. 749 c.e.) theologian John Damascene is one of the great fathers of the church for the Byzantine East. His contributions include several infl uential, even fundamental theological works, apologetic literature, and hymnography, all in Greek. John was the son of a wealthy mercantile family that served at the court of the Umayyad caliph in Damascus. He received an education in Greek and Arabic but gave up his position in government and retired to the monastery of St. Sabas in the Judean desert. He was eventually ordained a priest. John was active during the iconoclast controversy of the Byzantine emperor Leo the Isaurian (717–741 c.e.). John strongly defended the ancient Christian practice of veneration of holy images and composed in his Three Orations a reasoned defense of this practice. His work supported the later defenders of the veneration of icons following the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787 c.e.). Since John was outside the Byzantine territory he could continue to write against iconoclasm and the iconoclastic Byzantine emperors without fear of reprisal. His monumental work is the Fount of Knowledge, a collection of Christian knowledge in three parts. The fi rst book, the Dialektika, is essentially a defi nition of philosophical terminology. The second is a compilation of heresies based on the Panarion of Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (c. 315–403 c.e.). The fi nal section and the core synthesis of the work is entitled On the Orthodox Faith (De fi de orthodoxa), a summary of doctrinal positions on a wide array of theological topics designed to help Chalcedonian Christians respond to claims of Islam and other Christian churches. The theology of these responses is a summary of earlier Greek theologians. The most important fi gures in this summary are Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius of Alexandria, and the Latin theologian Leo the Great of Rome. Since the theology of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth’s human and divine natures was the area of greatest disagreement among Christians, John addresses many doctrinal concerns in this area. On the Orthodox Faith was translated into Slavonic in the ninth century c.e. and into Arabic in the early 10th century c.e. Latin translations were made in the 12th and 13th centuries c.e., and Thomas Aquinas cited On the Orthodox Faith in the Summa Theologiae with signifi cant frequency. John composed the earliest Christian apologetic literature in Greek addressed to Islam, although it is uncertain to what form of the Qur’an he had access. The infl uence of John was immediately felt on the Syriac theologian Theodore Abu Qurra’ (fl . 780–820 c.e.), another monk of St. Sabas, who wrote defenses, of the veneration of images and apologetic literature addressed to Islam in Arabic, Greek, and Syriac, although only his Arabic and Greek writings survive. John made substantial contributions to the development of the Byzantine liturgical offi ces. The system of daily and weekly hymnography based on 12 tones in Byzantine liturgy known as the Octoechos is attributed to him. In addition, he composed hymnography for saints’ days and for other occasions; a good portion of this material is still sung as part of the Byzantine liturgy today. Further reading: Louth, Andrew. St. John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Olewinski, Dariusz Jozef. Um die Ehre des Bildes: Theologische Motive der Bilderverteidigung bei Johannes von Damaskus. Münchener Theologische Studien II. Systematische Abteilung, vol. 67. St. Ottilien: Eos, 2004. Sahas, Daniel J. John of Damascus on Islam: The “Heresy of the Ishmaelites.” Leiden: Brill, 1972. Robert R. Phenix, Jr. Danelaw Danelaw encompassed the areas of northeast England where Danish customs had a strong political and cultural infl uence throughout much of the early Middle Ages. The area included Yorkshire (southern Northumbria), East Anglia, and the Five Boroughs, named for its main centers of settlement: Lincoln, Stamford, Nottingham, Leicester, and Derby. All these territories bore infl uence of Scandinavian culture from Viking invaders in the late-ninth century, who then became settlers and who drove the political leadership of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into retreat to the south and west. In c. 865 an army of between 500 and 1,000 Vikings arrived in England and began a systematic attack on the island. Their leaders were three brothers, Ivar the Boneless, Ubbi, and Halfdan, who had allegedly come to avenge the death of their father, Ragnar. They secured horses in East Anglia and proceeded to York, fi nding that infi ghting among local Anglo-Saxon leaders made conquest easy in Northumbria. The invaders next attacked west into Mercia and by 869 defeated East Anglia. The following year Halfdan attacked the kingdom of Wessex, seizing Reading and fi ghting nine pitched battles against Wessex. The Anglo-Saxons won only one battle, and the onslaught devastated the ranks of their nobility. Despite their unequivocal success, when Wessex offered a treaty the Vikings readily agreed and refocused their efforts north toward the kingdom of Mercia. Throughout the 870s the Danish army continued to conquer territory in England, dividing and redividing the lands they acquired. They split Mercia with a puppet Anglo-Saxon king, Ceowulf, who held the territory on their behalf from 874 to 877 while they completed their conquests. However by 876 Halfdan and his men had occupied and divided Northumbria, settled into farming, and started a permanent settlement. In effect, the Danes had politically removed Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, Derby, and Leicestershire from the rest of England. Historians believe that the Danish settlement proceeded in two waves and probably did not displace the English people living in the area. The fi rst wave of Danish settlers came as invaders, increasing in number over time. The second wave came as emigrants from Denmark, who settled in the areas protected by the military forces of the fi rst wave, and who subsequently pushed colonization into new areas. Early in the winter of 878 a Viking leader named Guthrum launched an attack on the kingdom of Wessex, catching it almost completely off guard and forcing its king, Alfred the Great (r. 871–899), to retreat to the island of Athelney. The Vikings proceeded to conquer the lands of Wessex, while Alfred gathered support and built reinforcements in the southwest, preparing for a counterattack. Later in the year Alfred defeated the Danes at Eddington and drove them back to Chippenham. Eventually Alfred and Guthrum settled their differences and established a treaty for what would become the Danelaw, the main boundary for the division between English England and Anglo-Danish Eng land. The area became a kind of “Denmark overseas,” which Danes organized and administered and which was different from the rest of England in ethnicity, culture, law, language, and social custom. Although the formal division lasted only about fi ve years, through the 11th century Danish law and customs prevailed in this area and the rulers continued to recognize the special and separate nature of Danish England. The term Danelaw fi rst appears in the time of Canute (1016–35) to distinguish the area’s different legal system, but it is incorrect to categorize Danelaw as a homogeneous territory. The differences in custom, law, and political allegiance varied with the density of the Norse population, but the area’s internal divisions never trumped its separateness from English England. The Scandinavian language permeated the area, as is most commonly observed in the frequent place names ending in by or thorp. Cultural differences also appear in land tenure. Rather than dividing their land into units known as hundreds used to administer the English shires, Yorkshire and the Five Boroughs settlers divided their land into units known as wapantakes. The term, never used in Scandinavia, is related to “weapon taking,” the Viking custom of brandishing one’s weapon to show approval of council decisions and is unique to the Danelaw. Likewise, they divided agricultural land into ploughlands, rather than using the Anglo- Saxon unit known as hide. 98 Danelaw The Danelaw’s legal codes also showed a great deal of Scandinavian infl uence, not only in terminology but in concepts that differed from those of Anglo-Saxon England. For example, in the Danelaw, wergild fi nes related to a man’s rank, rather the rank of his lord, and the laws punished violations against the king’s peace more severely than in English territories. Courts and legal assemblies refl ected Scandinavian roots as well. To investigate crimes, 12 thegns in each wapentake formed a jury of presentment, and the opinion of the majority prevailed in making its decision. They ultimately settled the fate of the accused by ordeal, as in Anglo-Saxon areas, but the notion of a jury of locals charged with investigating a crime was not an Anglo-Saxon concept. Historians note the positive infl uence of the Scandinavian culture on the island, from the intensifi cation of agriculture that made Lincolnshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk among the most prosperous shires of the period and the political success of King Canute to the regular commerce that emerged in the North Sea. Although the formal boundary of the Danelaw lasted only a few years, the impact of the Danes on England’s culture, economy, and political system remained strong throughout the Middle Ages. See also Anglo-Saxon culture; Anglo-Saxon kingdoms; Vikings: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Further reading: Hart, Cyril. The Danelaw. London: Hambledon Press, 1992; Hollister, C. Warren. The Making of England, 55 b.c. to 1399. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1983; Jones, Gwyn. A History of the Vikings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984; Loyn, H. R. The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, 500–1087. London: Edward Arnold, 1984; Stenton, F. M. Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947. Kevin D. Hill Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) Florentine author Dante Alighieri was born in 1265 in Florence to a family of noble lineage. His father made a living through property rental and moneylending. His mother, Bella degli Abati, died when he was seven years old, and his father also died when he was young, before 1283. Dante found father fi gures in his mentor Bruno Latini, and in Guido Cavalcanti, both of whom shaped Dante’s early cultural development. Dante was betrothed to his wife, Gemma Donati, when he was 12 years old, although he had fallen in love with another girl named Beatrice Portinari. He married Gemma Donati in 1285 but Beatrice became his muse, even after her death at the age of 24 in 1290. His early 1292 work, La Vita Nuova, was a tribute to his love for Beatrice. During his lifetime two powerful supranational institutions that had been prominent features of the medieval world, the Catholic Church and the empire, collapsed. These two entities faced challenges in the developing urban centers, as well as in the autonomous national state. Dante recognized the importance of these two events and dedicated his works to understanding the ambiguous connections between these two great powers, through the use of metaphor or historical examples in the form of allegory and other literary devices. In his writing Dante wished to communicate philosophical and theological ideas to as many people as possible, unlike most contemporary scriptures, in which truth is mysteriously encrypted. The Comedy was written in Italian instead of Latin, as Dante intended to exalt the use of this vernacular language in literature. The Comedy successfully proved the ability of the Italian language in the hands of a skilled poet-theologian, for the language managed to express its complex ideas. Dante’s magnum opus was originally known as the Comedy (Commedia) even though it also contains elements of tragedy and satire. Dante explores the depths An illustration by Gustave Doré of the guilty being buried head fi rst, from a scene out of Inferno: Canto XIX. Dante Alighieri 99 of human actions and emotion in this Christian epic. The poem has a ternary structure, which highlights the importance of the number 3, associated with the theological concept of the Trinity. He began writing the epic in 1307 or 1308. In the Venetian edition of 1555, the work became known as the Divine Comedy, as it is commonly referred to today. This relates to Dante’s view of his work as the “sacred poem.” The poem, with over 14,000 lines of verse, tells of a pilgrim’s fi ctional journey from hell to purgatory to paradise, in the year 1300. The pilgrim descends to Hell on Good Friday, only to leave it on Easter Sunday to reach Purgatory. Three days later he passes through the Earthly Paradise, before rising up to the limits of the universe to witness ethereal Godly visions. See also Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Cosmo, Umberto. A Handbook in Dante Studies. Oxford: Blackwell, 1960; Quinones, Ricardo J. Dante Alighieri. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1998; Scott, John A. Understanding Dante. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004. Nurfadzilah Yahaya Delhi Sultanate The infl ux of Muslim Turks into the Indian subcontinent began in the 11th and 12th centuries. It was spearheaded by a series of military dynasties, including the Ghaznavids, who ruled parts of Persia and invaded northern India, and the Ghurids, who started off as allies of the great Ghazanavid ruler Mahmud of Ghazni, but broke away after his death in 1030 and conquered much of northern India for themselves. Aibak, a Turk born in Central Asia and taken to Nishapur as a slave of the Ghurid ruling house, served as a Ghurid administrator from 1192 until 1206, when he was freed and named sultan, or ruler, of a new dynasty based in the city of Delhi by his former masters. While in the service of the Ghurids, he led a series of military campaigns in India, expanding the empire’s territory signifi cantly and subjugating most of the land between the Indus and Ganges Rivers. Aibak’s reign, during which he spent the majority of his time trying to establish political institutions and geographic boundaries, was relatively short and he died in 1210. Aibak was succeeded by his son, Aram in Lahore, who had little experience in politics and was overthrown and killed in 1211 by Aibak’s son-in-law, Shams ud-Din Iltutmish, who was favored by the army. Immediately upon assuming control of the sultanate, Iltutmish was faced with military challenges from both the neighboring Ghaznavids and the Muslim state in Sind. In a series of wars against them, Iltutmish reasserted his authority and by 1228 had conquered all of Sind. According to the Muslim historian Ibn Batuta, Iltutmish was the fi rst ruler of Delhi to reign independently of a larger state and in 1228–29 he received emissaries from the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad, the premier Muslim state, at least in name, of this period. Under his leadership, the Delhi Sultanate escaped destruction when the Mongol leader Genghis Khan swept westward through Central Asia. Iltutmish died in 1236 and was succeeded by a series of weak rulers and the Turkish nobility, nicknamed “the Forty,” who controlled the sultanate’s most important provinces. His son Rukn ad-Din Firuz Shah ruled for seven months before being deposed by his sister, Raziyya, whom their father had initially chosen as the new ruler before his death. The sultana had been trained in political administration during periods when her father went off on military campaigns and left her in charge of maintaining the government. Raziyya encountered stiff opposition from many of the sultanate’s offi cials, and she was overthrown in 1240. Iltutmish’s youngest son, Mu‘izz ad-Din Bahram Shah, ascended the throne and worked to strengthen the northern frontier against the Mongols. He stopped an attempt by his sister to regain control of the sultanate. However he too was overthrown in 1242 by senior government offi cials and was subsequently executed. The new sultan, Nasir ud-Din Mahmud, was a recluse and granted political authority to Ghiyath ad-Din Balban, his slave and future son-in-law. Under Balban, the sultanate continued to ward off Mongol raiding parties and stopped revolts by rebellious Hindu rulers. When Sultan Nasir ud-Din, who had no children, died in 1265, Balban formally assumed the title of sultan, ruling for two decades until 1286. The sultanate’s army was reorganized and improved under Balban and he ordered the construction of forts in and around Lahore in order to present a defensive line against the Mongol leader Hulagu Khan, who had invaded Iran in 1256 and was actively campaigning throughout Persia and the Arab Middle East during the second half of the 1250s. Between 1280 and 1283 one of the sultanate’s governors, Tughril, rebelled against Balban and the sultan led a military campaign against him, which resulted in the governor’s death during a raid by Balban’s forces on his camp. The early period of the Delhi Sultanate came to an end in 1290 when Balban’s son, Bughra Khan, refused 100 Delhi Sultanate the throne and Malik Firuz Khalji overthrew Balban’s teenage grandson, Kaiqubad. The Turk Khaljids adopted Afghan customs after occupying Afghanistan and oversaw the rapid expansion of the sultanate, conquering Gujarat and Deccan during their reign from 1290 to 1320. Sultan Ala ud-Din Khalji (r. 1296–1316) enlarged the army and introduced economic and tax reforms. Upon his death, he was succeeded by a series of inept rulers and internal strife led to the downfall of the Khaljids soon after his death. The Tughlaq dynasty (1320–1412) rose to power and Sultan Muhammad Ibn Tughlaq (r. 1325–51) founded a second capital city at Deogir in order to control an increasingly vast empire. By moving the active capital south, the sultan could oversee the continued military campaigns in Deccan. Under Muhammad a system of currency was introduced and taxes were increased to meet the sultan’s military expenditures. Much of the later years of his reign was spent dealing with revolts, trying to head off dissension from the clergy (ulama), and handling external threats, which resulted in the reduction of the empire’s territory. Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–88) was not as militarily successful as his predecessors, but was perhaps the dynasty’s greatest administrator-ruler. He reintroduced the jagir system, which paid army offi cers in grants of land rather than cash salaries, and introduced a justice system that rigorously enforced the laws. Firuz Shah also focused on improving social services and opened up a large hospital, Dar us-Shafa, in Delhi and founded bureaus of employment and marriage. During his reign the state fi nanced the expansion of existing cities, the construction of new ones, and the building of mosques, bathhouses, and canals. The religious policy of the sultanate under Firuz Shah was strictly Sunni and non-Muslims were required to pay the jizya tax and Shi’ite Muslims were placed under restrictions. Upon Firuz Shah’s death in 1388, a succession crisis led to the downfall of the Tughlaq dynasty. In the midst of this crisis, Timurlane (Tamerlane) the ruler of Samarkand who was forging an empire in Central Asia, invaded India and captured and sacked Delhi in 1398. Famine and the spread of disease followed the Timurid invasion, with thousands of slaves and much of the city’s wealth being taken back to Central Asia. The Tughlaq dynasty was no longer a single entity and several competing states were left to squabble over Muslim India. With the fall of the Tughlaqs, the Turkish sultanate of Delhi began its steady decline. Despite periods of revival under the Sayyid dynasty (1414–1451) and the Lodi dynasty (1451–1526), the centralized sultanate no longer existed and both dynasties were faced with opposition from India’s Hindu population and rival Indian Muslim states. The sultanate was formally ended in 1526 when Zahir ud- Din Muhammad Babur, a Chaghatai Turk who ruled in Kabul, ushered in the period of the great Mughal Empire. See also Abbasid dynasty; Sind, Arab conquest of. Further reading: Arshad, M. D. An Advanced History of Muslim Rule in Indo-Pakistan. Dacca: Ideal Publications, 1967; Jackson, Peter. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Khan, Mir Gholam Hussein. The History of Mohamedan Power in India. Trans. by Johns Briggs. Delhi: Idarahi Adabiyat-i-Delli, 1924; Lane-Poole, Stanley. Medieval India Under Mohammedan Rule (a.d. 712–1764). New York: Haskell House Publishers, 1970; Mahajan, V. D. The Sultanate of Delhi. Delhi: S. Chand & Co., 1962; Majumdar, R. C., A. D. Pusalker, and A. K. Majumdar, eds. The History and Culture of the Indian People. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1966; Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad. Religion and Politics in India During the Thirteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002; Sharma, S. R. The Crescent in India: A Study in Medieval History. New Delhi: Sanjay Prakashan, 1986. Christopher Anzalone Dhimmi In Islamic ruled territories, Dhimmis were those religious minorities, or People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), who were protected under Islamic law. People of the Book included Jews, Christians (of all denominations), and sometimes Zoroastrians. As polytheists Hindus were not usually granted protected minority status. Under Islamic law and customs adult males of sound mind who had protected status paid a poll tax in addition to the customary land tax but were exempt from military service. In Muslim societies nonbelievers were not forced to convert and had freedom of religious practice as well as extensive communal autonomy including education for their children; however, they were not considered as equals to their Muslim counterparts. Sometimes stipulations regarding the height of bell towers on churches and dress were enforced, particularly under intolerant or dogmatic rulers. Nor were nonbelievers allowed to proselytize. The treatment and status of nonbelievers in Muslim realms varied with Dhimmi 101 time and place but was usually more open and tolerant than anywhere in medieval Europe. See also Islam. Further reading: Vaglieri, Laura Veccia. “The Patriarchal and Umayyad Caliphates,” The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1, The Central Islamic Lands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970; Tritton, A. S. The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects. London: Oxford University Press, 1931; rep. London: Frank Case, 1970; Dennett, D. C. Conversion and the Poll-tax in Early Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950; Hayland, Robert, ed. Muslims and Others in Early Islamic Society. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2004. Janice J. Terry Divine Caliphate and the Ummah In June 632 the prophet Muhammad, the founder and last prophet of Islam, died of natural causes. He left behind a nascent Islamic state within the Arabian Peninsula. Although some Muslim sources state that there had been a premonition of his death, the confusion and divisions within the Muslim community or Ummah suggest that Muhammad’s death was unexpected. In the wake of the Prophet’s death the general consensus was that, since Muhammad did not leave explicit instructions on how to choose a successor, such a leader should be elected. Despite this consensus not all factions agreed. One group, which later came to be known as the Partisans of Ali or Shiat Ali, claimed that Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was designated as the prophet’s successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm during his last hajj pilgrimage. The four successors to Muhammad as leaders of the Ummah—Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn al- Affan, and Ali ibn Abu Talib—formed what is now known as the al-Rashidun or “Rightly Divinely Guided” Caliphate. Originally many believed that the caliph was the political, but not the religious, successor to Muhammad. However other scholars have argued that the caliph, at least initially during the al-Rashidun period and Umayyad dynasty, held both political and religious authority, though they did not claim prophetic powers, since Muhammad was considered the “seal” of the prophetic line that began with Adam, the fi rst man in the Islamic tradition. ABU BAKR AL-SIDDIQ Umar ibn al-Khattab, Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah, and Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, three of Muhammad’s closest companions and allies, decided that Abu Bakr should take over as head of the Ummah. As a member of the infl uential tribe of Quraysh, of which Muhammad was also a member, Abu Bakr was an early convert to Islam and father of A’isha, one of the prophet’s wives. In 622 when Muhammad was compelled to leave his native city of Mecca for the oasis city of Yathrib (later renamed Medina) to the north, because of the death of his uncle and protector Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib and threats from the city’s polytheistic leaders, Abu Bakr was his trusted lieutenant and traveling companion. As word of Muhammad’s death spread throughout Arabia, several Arab tribes that had pledged allegiance to Muhammad refused to obey the new caliph, Abu Bakr, who ruled from Medina. Although some of these tribes openly rejected Islam, despite having converted during Muhammad’s lifetime, other rebellious tribes objected to the continuation of political subjugation to the caliphate in Medina. Abu Bakr moved swiftly against the rebels, stopping the rebellion with military force in what came to be known as the Ridda Wars, or the Wars of Apostasy. The struggle against the Hanifa clan, led by their leader Musaylimah, who claimed to be Muhammad’s prophetic successor, was the bloodiest, fi nally ending in 633 with the defeat of the Hanifa and the death of Musaylimah at the Battle of Aqraba. The larger result of the triumph of the al-Rashidun Caliphate over its challengers was the fi rst major expansion of the Islamic state since the death of Muhammad, as the Muslims were in fi rm control over the vast majority of the Arabian Peninsula. After his victory in the Ridda Wars, Abu Bakr turned his attention to the north and east, directing Muslim armies to begin moving against the Byzantine Empire and its Arab allies in Palestine and Syria and the Persian Sassanid Empire’s landholdings in Mesopotamia. The fi rst Muslim military expeditions into Byzantine and Sassanid lands occurred during Abu Bakr’s reign. Before he was able to continue the caliphate’s expansion, Abu Bakr died of old age in August 634, after nominating Umar as his successor. UMAR IBN AL-KHATTAB Umar ibn al-Khattab, one of Muhammad’s greatest critics and persecutors before converting to Islam, oversaw the caliphate’s fi rst great expansion. It was during his reign as caliph that Islam’s political and religious authority spread by leaps and bounds outside its Arabian homeland. In fairly short succession, 102 Divine Caliphate and the Ummah the Byzantine Empire was driven out of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and parts of southern Asia Minor while the Sassanid Empire was pushed out of Mesopotamia by Muslim armies. After entering Iran and forcing the Sassanid government to fl ee farther east, the Muslims established new settlements at Kufah and Basra in present-day Iraq, which would act as garrisons to safeguard the caliphate’s new conquests. Under Umar, the administration of the caliphate began to develop, with its soldiers paid varying rates according to the length and nature of their service, and local subjugated non-Muslim populations required to pay taxes, while Muslims were required to pay religious taxes. In 644 Umar was mortally wounded by Abu Lululah, a Persian slave, while leading communal prayers in Medina, for personal and not political reasons. UTHMAN IBN AL-AFFAN Before he died Umar appointed a six-member council of Muhammad’s Companions, all members of the tribe of Quraysh, to elect the next caliph. Ali was offered the position if he would agree to follow the edicts of his two predecessors. After Ali declined, the council elected Uthman ibn al-Affan, an early convert to Islam and a member of the powerful Umayyad clan, as the new caliph. During his reign the authority of the central government in Medina was enhanced and a conference of scholars was called to codify an offi cial version of the Qur’an, placing the chapters in the order in which they appear today. During Uthman’s reign the caliphate continued to expand, with Muslim armies moving farther east into Sassanid Iran. Through treaties and military conquest, the Muslims established their control over the region’s urban centers, though in the mountains and rural areas, traditional societies continued to exist and non-Muslim peoples, such as the Turks of Central Asia, were prone to occasional revolt. The Sassanid empire, which had been in power since 224, was unable to maintain centralized control and by 651 it had collapsed. Three regions in particular opposed Uthman’s reign: Medina, where non-Umayyad members of the Quraysh were dismayed at the caliph’s favoritism; and Kufah and Egypt, where the caliph had attempted to revoke longstanding privileges and increased taxation. In 656 opposition to the caliph came to a head when several hundred Muslim soldiers stationed in Egypt returned to Medina to protest Uthman’s policies. He talked them into returning to Egypt but sent an order to that region’s governor instructing him to punish the soldiers. The caliph’s message was intercepted and the soldiers returned, enraged, and assassinated Uthman as he sat reading the Qur’an. Uthman’s nepotism led to his downfall and further divisions in the Muslim Ummah. ALI IBN ABI TALIB After Uthman’s assassination, Ali became the fourth al- Rashidun caliph. Although he had not faced open opposition to his ascension to the seat of caliph, opposition to his rule soon coalesced around the Prophet’s widow A’isha, and two of Muhammad’s Companions, al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and Talha ibn Ubayd Allah, who objected to Ali’s close alliance with prominent factions of Muslim converts. Fearing that the infl uence of the Quraysh would be eclipsed, A’isha, al-Zubayr, and Talha led a rebellion against Ali. In December 656 at the Battle of the Camel outside Basra in Iraq, Ali’s forces defeated the rebellion, killing al-Zubayr and Talha. A’isha was sent back to Medina, where she was placed under house arrest. The main bases of Ali’s support were in Iraq; however in Syria, Ali was faced with open opposition from that province’s governor, Muawiya, an Umayyad relative of Uthman, who criticized the caliph for refusing to punish Uthman’s assassins. Muawiya was in command of a powerful military force and in 657 the armies of Muawiya and Ali met at Siffi n. A full-scale fi ght eventually ensued, but was soon ended when Muawiya’s soldiers held up pages from the Qu’ran and called out for a peaceful settlement. Ali, to the dismay of some of his more zealous followers, agreed to have his dispute with Muawiya arbitrated. In the end Muawiya remained governor of Syria and Ali was left unchallenged as the caliph, though his position had been severely weakened. A group of zealots, the Kharijites, previously staunch supporters of Ali, claimed that by agreeing to arbitration, Ali had circumvented the will of God. Although he later defeated the bulk of the Kharijites’s military forces, Ali failed to stamp out their rebellion. Kharijite assassination attempts against Muawiya and other senior Umayyad leaders failed, but in 661 Ali was mortally wounded by the Kharijite Abdur-Rahman ibn Muljam while leading the predawn prayers at the central mosque in Kufah. With his assassination, the al-Rashidun Caliphate came to an end and Muawiya and the Umayyad dynasty of Syria rose in its place. The Umayyads would continue expanding the Islamic state until the Abbasid dynasty overthrew them in a violent revolution in 750. Further reading: Berkey, Jonathan P. The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Crone, Patricia, and Martin Hinds. God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Divine Caliphate and the Ummah 103 Donner, Fred McGraw. The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981; Hitti, Philip. History of the Arabs, revised 10th edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974; Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. New York: Longman, 2004; Kennedy, Hugh. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. New York: Routledge, 2001; Lewis, Bernard. The Arabs in History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; Madelung, Wilferd. The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Christopher Anzalone Donatello (c. 1382–1466) Renaissance sculptor Donato di Niccolode Bettto Bardi (Donatello) is one of the greatest and most famous Italian sculptors of the 15th century, whose work was greatly infl uenced by the early European Renaissance. He was born in Florence (or in its vicinities) between the years 1382 and 1387, in the family of Niccolò di Betto Bardi, a Florentine wool carder. He studied in the workshop of Lorenzo Ghiberti, a bronze sculptor, who in 1402 had won the competition to make the doors of the Florentine baptistery. Donatello’s fi rst works, the marble David and St. John the Evangelist for the cathedral façade, show the infl uence of Ghiberti and of the Gothic style. The young sculptor’s artistic development was greatly stimulated by his friendship with Filippo Brunelleschi, a sculptor and an architect, who later stayed with Donatello during his years of studies in Rome. Most of his adult life was spent in Florence, where he worked under the patronage of fi rst Cosimo, then Piero de’ Medici, but during the years 1444–55 he lived in Padua, commissioned to work on bronze statue of a famous Venetian condottiere, popularly called Gattamelata, who had died shortly before. Donatello’s style may be described as classical realism: He had a strong proclivity to depict life as it is and, attempting to link between the medieval art and the classical antiquity, took great interest in the peculiarities of human body and facial expressions. (A closer study of the ancient models eventually taught Donatello to refrain from overly expressive radical realism.) It is possible to divide Donatello’s work into two substyles: the pure realistic style and the neoclassical style, with great allusion to the Greco-Roman ideals. The statue of Mary Magdalene created for the Florentine baptistery in 1434 shows an old, skeletal, hairy woman, and Donatello’s King David, nicknamed Zuccone, or pumpkin (1427–35) (for his large, bold head), may be grouped under Donatello’s realistic style. These works tend to reject the traditional iconography. On the contrary, the Triumph of Bacchus in Museo Borgello, Florence, the bronze David (c. 1469), and the half-bust of Selena on a bronze vase (Kensington Museum, London) imitate ancient art. The best of Donatello’s works, however, are those in which he followed his own ideas, which in many ways corresponded with the pursuits and innovations of the Italian humanists—a careful exploration of human body and psyche, the interrelationship between human beings, and the human interaction with nature and the higher spheres. Donatello’s genuine interest in psychology and his desire to bring to light the inwardness of things are evident in the statue John the Baptist, exhibited in Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari (Venice), which he created in Padua; this extraordinary fi gure clearly shows new insight into psychological reality as constantly plagued by emotional anxieties. Donatello is also credited with the invention of the schiacciato (“fl attened out”) technique, a new mode of bas-relief, applied to his marble panel St. George Killing the Dragon (1416–17) and other works. The technique involved more shallow carving than was customary, which created a sharp contrast between bodies and surrounding landscape, making the relief more dependent on visual perception. Donatello’s great fascination with human emotions continued throughout most of his work but was intensifi ed after the artistic crisis he experienced during his last years in Padua. From the magnifi cent bronze David (infl uenced, apparently, by Etruscan fi gurines) to the dancing children in the relief of the Duomo di Prato (1434)—Donatello’s creations are lively, energetic, and gracious. His works are rendered extraordinary for their individuality, and for their ability to create a dialogue between the composition and its onlooker. Donatello was said to treat human passions somewhat obsessively, more often than not showing them in repellent forms, as, for example, in the Entombment of Christ, a bas-relief made of painted plaster for the Church of St. Anthony in Padua. The same expressiveness can be discerned in Donatello’s last work, which was fi nished by his pupil Bertoldo after the master’s death—two great bronze pulpits showing the Passion of Christ, work of tremendous complexity. The great Renaissance sculptor died in 1466, being once again employed by his old patrons the Medici, and was buried with great honors 104 Donatello in the Church of St. Lorenzo, covered with the same bronze pulpits. See also Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Rosenauer, Artur. Donatello. Milan: Electa, 1993; Tschudi, H. De la critica modenia. Torino, 1887; Vasari, Giorgio. “Donatello: Sculptor of Florence (1383–1466).” In Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996. Victoria Duroff Dvaravati The Mon kingdom of Dvaravati (also called Siam) fl ourished in what is now Thailand from the sixth century c.e. to around the 11th century. The kingdom covered the political area of Nakhon Pathom (west of present- day Bangkok), U-Thong, and Khu Bua. Dvaravati extended outward from the lower Chao Phraya River valley, to the westward Tenasserim Yoma, and then southward to the Isthmus of Kra. The kingdom also consisted of towns immediately outside this perimeter that paid tribute to the kingdom, while not necessarily considering themselves under its direct rule. Dvaravati did not yield strong political infl uence on other established Mon kingdoms or states such as Myanmar or the Mon in northern Thailand. This was because of its isolated geographical location (surrounded by mountainous regions). Dvaravati is considered to be the epicenter of the spread of Indian culture in the region. The Dvaravati kingdom’s capital was Nakhon Pathom, a city archaeologists and historians believe to have been established around 3 b.c.e. Around 607 Chinese pilgrims wrote of a kingdom called To-lo-poti, which practiced Buddhism. It is widely believed that they wrote of Dvaravati. While the name Dvaravati is of Sanskrit origins, the kingdom was only referred to as such by the Western world in 1964 when anthropologists and archaeologists found coins in the area inscribed with the words sridvaravati. The presence of coins indicates trade, and the Dvaravati kingdom was famed for its trading culture with India, and its sophisticated economic infrastructure. The kingdom of Dvaravati actively practiced Buddhism, albeit with a mixture of indigenous Mon and Indic culture. Buddhist pilgrims belonging to Emperor Ashoka disseminated it within Southeast Asia. The kingdom was also the center of Buddhist devotion in Southeast Asia at that time. Numerous Buddhist artifacts have been found in Dvaravati and range in style and infl uence by the trends found within the Gupta empire (Hindu elements), Theraveda, and Mahayana Buddhist tradition. Various objects have been found in Nakhon Pathom that point toward ritual offerings as part of the belief structure. The period of Dvaravati rule was greatly infl uenced by Vedic and Indic principles within a Buddhist framework. It maintained strong cultural and religious ties to India, refl ected through the use of architecture, art, and language. Pali and Sanskrit were spoken, as was the indigenous Mon language. Art fl ourished, as did intellectual pursuits such as literature and poetry. Dvaravati was a highly organized and political society and modeled itself upon the Gupta style of organization where minor princes ruled outer provinces and the king directly presided over his locality. Dvaravati employed the use of councils and administrative regions to govern the wide area. Moats uncovered by archaeological research point toward a sophisticated system of agriculture and as such agricultural development allowed the kingdom to be relatively self-suffi cient. Dvaravati was able to sustain its population for centuries. The kingdom of Dvaravati predated the Khmers by at least 100 years; however it was eventually eclipsed and absorbed into Khmer and Thai religion and culture. Dvaravati had a tumultuous history from the 10th century onward when it was fi rst conquered by the Burmese, and then captured by the Khmer in the 11th century, who dominated the area right up to the 13th century when it was taken over by the Thai kingdom. See also Khmer kingdom. Further reading: Anupa, Pande, and Parul Pandya Dhar, eds. Cultural Interface Of India with Asia: Religion, Art and Architecture. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2004; Brown, Robert L. The Dvaravati Wheels of the Law and the Indianization of South East Asia. New York: Brill Academic Publishers, 1996; Indrawooth, Phasook. “Dvaravati: Political Life and Thought.” Dialogue (v.5/1, 2003). Samaya L. Sukha

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

De Soto, Hernando (c. 1500–1542) Spanish explorer There is no accurate record of when Hernando De Soto was born in Spain, but historians believe it was in 1500. Being from a poor community, De Soto looked to the New World to make his fortune. He left on February 25, 1514, for Castilla del Oro (present-day Costa Rica and Panama), where he served under Pedrarias Dávila. In 1524, he was involved with the conquest of Nicaragua. During this time, he and Hernán Ponce de León became partners and became two of the richest men in Nicaragua. From 1524 to 1528, De Soto was involved with the exploration of the Pacific coast of South America financed by Francisco Pizarro, Diego de Almagro, and Hernando de Luque. It was in 1528 that the expedition made contact with the Incas. When Pizarro launched his expedition into the Incan lands, he was in need of ships. De Soto and de León had a ship that Pizarro hired along with both men. The expedition set sail in December 1531. At that time, the Incan Empire was in the midst of a civil war and Pizarro used this to his advantage. Although his army was significantly smaller (a few hundred against hundreds of thousands), the Spanish army was technologically superior. Especially important to the Spanish were their mounted lancers led by De Soto, who repeatedly routed the Incan soldiers in battle. Pizarro eventually captured the Incan emperor and after his ransom was paid, killed him. When the loot was divided up, De Soto came away with the third largest amount. Still, what De Soto really wanted was to govern his own territory in the New World, but Pizarro was not inclined to give him any territory to govern. De Soto returned to Spain in 1536 with most of the gold and silver that he and de León had accumulated. De Soto used his new wealth to live well and get married. He was also admitted to the Order of Santiago. charles v, the Holy Roman Emperor, granted De Soto the right to conquer Florida in 1537 and made him governor of Cuba. De Soto would have to pay for the expedition, but would receive land in the area as payment. De Soto launched his expedition from Havana, Cuba, in May 1539, and landed on May 30 at Tampa Bay, where the expedition remained until mid-July. De Soto moved north, fighting battles with the local natives and looting their villages. He spent the winter of 1539– 40 in the area of present-day Tallahassee. On March 3, 1540, De Soto and his men started northeast passing through Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. At that point De Soto turned west and his men became the first Europeans to cross the Appalachian Mountains. The expedition then moved through Georgia and Alabama, finally ending near Columbus, Mississippi. They stayed there through the winter of 1540–41. The next year De Soto and his men continued west, and in June 1541 they became the first Europeans to see the Mississippi River, which they called the Río del Spirito Santo. They crossed the river on June 10 and continued west into Arkansas. De Soto’s scouts pushed farther west as far as the edge of the Great Plains. The expedition spent the winter of 1541–42 camped in the area of modern-day Little Rock, Arkansas. It was during this winter that De Soto realized there was no great civilization in this area on par with the Incans or Aztecs, and that he was financially ruined. In spring he fell sick, and on May 21, 1542, he died. His body was dropped into the Mississippi River. The remainder of the expedition explored eastern Texas before returning to the Mississippi River. From there they built barges and floated down the river to the Gulf of Mexico. Then they sailed along the coast until they finally reached a Spanish settlement in Mexico in September 1543. With De Soto’s death, de León sought to recover money he said De Soto owed him. De Soto’s widow fought these charges in court, but the decision of the court was not recorded. See also Aztecs (Mexica); voyages of discovery. Further reading: Bedini, Silvio A., ed. The Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992; Galloway, Patricia, ed. The Hernando de Soto Expedition: History, Historiography, and “Discovery” in the Southeast. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997; Golay, Michael, and John S. Bowman. North American Exploration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003; Hudson, Charles. Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando de Soto and the South’s Ancient Chiefdoms. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1997. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Delhi and Agra Delhi, now the capital of India, has been the political center of Indian civilization for over a thousand years. The settlement known as Indraprastha, which was mentioned in the Indian epic the Mahabharata, was located at modern-day Purana Qila, near Delhi. It became the capital of Muslim dynasties of Turkish, Afghan, and slave origins that invaded and ruled northern India beginning in the 12th century. Because of its strategic importance at the confluence of the Ganges and Jumna Rivers, it was the battleground of successive conquering armies. The most ferocious invader was Timurlane (Tamerlane), who laid waste to city and killed or enslaved most of its inhabitants in 1398. Two regional Muslim dynasties rebuilt Delhi after Timurlane left India in 1399, the second being the Lodi dynasty, which was destroyed by Babur at the Battles of Panipat in 1526. Babur made Delhi and Agra his capitals. Although Babur only reigned from 1526 until 1530, his reign was important because of the impact it had on India in succeeding centuries. He was descended from Timur on his father’s side, and Genghis Khan on his mother’s. He ran much of his administration from Delhi and began to rebuild it. Babur was buried in Afghanistan but his son Humayun was buried in Delhi. His tomb is an early example of Mughal (or Moghul) architecture, which reached its peak under Humayun’s great-grandson Shah Jahan. In 1556, Babur’s grandson, Akbar, became emperor and he decided to move the capital from Delhi to Agra, where Babur had begun building palaces and gardens befitting a capital. From 1571 until 1585, Akbar mainly 102 Delhi and Agra In the course of his travels, Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto became the first European to see the Mississippi River. ruled in Fatehpur Sikri. Foreign visitors, including ambassadors from European countries, commented on the opulence of Akbar’s court and the beauty of Agra. Akbar’s successor Jahangir (ruled 1605–27) held court at Agra, where he received Sir Thomas Roe, the ambassador of James I of England, but for most of his reign Jahangir resided in Lahore in modern-day Pakistan, or in Kabul in Afghanistan. Only a few important buildings were added to Agra during Jahangir’s reign. Jahangir’s son Shah Jahan was a great builder who greatly added to both Agra and Delhi. His greatest legacy is the Taj Mahal, a great mausoleum he built for his wife, Mumtaz Mahal. It is one of the wonders of the world. Shah Jahan also built and improved many monuments in Delhi that include large city walls with grand gates, most notably the Ajmeri Gate, the Delhi Gate, the Kashmiri Gate, and the Turkman Gate. Shah Jahan in 1648 began work on the Red Fort in Delhi to improve the city’s defenses. In 1739, Nadir Shah, emperor of Persia, captured and looted Delhi, taking the fabulous jewel-encrusted Peacock Throne back with him to Persia. In 1760, the Marathas attacked and looted Delhi again. In 1761, the Jats captured Agra and sacked the city, including the Taj Mahal. Nine years later it was captured by the Marathas, who held it until 1803, when both cities were taken by the British. See also Mughal Empire. Further reading: Asher, Catherine B. Architecture of Mughal India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Havell, E. B. A Handbook to Agra and the Taj. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co., 1924; Richards, J. F. The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Justin Corfield Descartes, René (1596–1650) mathematician and philosopher René Descartes was a metaphysician, mathematician, and natural philosopher responsible for changing the course of philosophy and creating analytic geometry and an influential physical theory. His early life is obscure. Born into a wealthy French family of physicians and civil servants, he was educated at the Jesuit College of La Flèche from 1606 to 1614, taking a law degree from the University of Poitiers in 1616. He then wandered through Europe as a soldier. He later claimed that in 1619, in Germany, he had a vision of a new philosophy. Descartes envisioned himself as a new Aristotle, with a philosophy universal in its application. In 1628, Descartes settled in the Dutch Republic, remaining there for 20 years. Descartes was a loyal Catholic who, despite living in a Protestant society, never showed any interest in conversion. He differed from Catholic orthodoxy in his acceptance of the Suncentered Copernican astronomy. Although Descartes was in no physical danger from the church, he was shocked by his fellow Copernican Galileo Galilei’s condemnation in 1633. Abandoning a treatise on the verge of publication that would have systematically expounded his natural philosophy, Descartes turned to metaphysics to find a religiously unimpeachable basis for natural knowledge. In 1638, he published Discourse on Method, setting forth his program for natural philosophy and three associated treatises he claimed exemplified his method on geometry, optics, and meteorology, including matter theory. These works were in French rather than Latin, aimed at an educated public, rather than university scholars. Descartes was the first notable European male intellectual to think of women as an important part of his audience. The Discourse sets forth the famous cogito ergo sum (although not in those words), Descartes’s argument that the very process of thinking proves that the thinker exists. This metaphysics was further elaborated in Meditations on First Philosophy, published with a number of objections from others and replies by Descartes in 1641. Descartes attempted to use the cogito as a foundation for both metaphysical claims (a logical proof of the existence of God) and physical ones—that which can be logically deduced from known truths can be certain. Descartes’s proof of the existence of God is similar to the famous “ontological argument” of Anselm of Canterbury. God’s perfection is so great that our “clear and distinct” idea of it could not have been caused by a being less perfect than God. Indeed, the clearness with which we hold the idea of God is in itself proof of God’s existence. Descartes was a rationalist who viewed logical consistency as prior to empirical observation. As a natural philosopher, Descartes set forth a vision of nature as mechanical, a “mechanical philosophy.” He did so most systematically in his 1644 Latin textbook, Principles of Philosophy. He claimed that the universe was full of matter, defined as that which occupied space—Descartes, like Aristotle, denied the possibility of a vacuum—and everything that occurred in the material universe could be explained by the Descartes, René 103 interaction of matter and motion. Descartes’s picture of matter in motion was dominated by vortices, whirlpools of matter. Large vortices carried the planets around the Sun while smaller ones on Earth explained various physical phenomena such as the weather and magnetism. This led to the problem of the interaction of the human soul, whose spiritual nature Descartes accepted, with the material and mechanical human body. He suggested that this interaction might the function of the pineal gland. Descartes was a great mathematician, and along with his contemporary and rival Pierre de Fermat, he founded analytic geometry. Descartes used these powerful methods to solve long-standing matimatical problems. He also introduced the still-existing convention of representing powers by numerical superscripts, an important contribution toward making mathematics more abstract, as the previous convention of referring to second powers as squares and third powers as cubes made it hard to deal with fourth and higher powers. In optics, Descartes independently rediscovered the sine law of refraction previously known to the English scientist Thomas Harriot and the Dutch professor Willebrod Snell, now known as Snell’s law. By the 1640s, Descartes ran into trouble in the Dutch Republic where Cartesianism had won an extensive and vociferous following. Intellectually conservative, university-based Aristotelian Calvinists identified Cartesianism with their liberal Protestant enemies. Although Descartes was not a courtier by nature and was quite concerned in his career to avoid patronage, he eventually succumbed to the lure of the court, and went to Stockholm in 1649 to tutor the brilliant young Queen Christina Vasa of Sweden (1626–89) in philosophy. Unfortunately, she wanted to be tutored at 5 a.m. during one of the coldest winters in Swedish history, and Descartes died shortly thereafter. His last work to be published in his lifetime was The Passions of the Soul. It sets forth Descartes’s theories of the relation of the soul and body and recommends the government of the passions lest they lead people into evil deeds. Descartes’s body was returned to France in 1667. As further developed by other philosophers, Cartesianism became the dominant school of philosophy in France and widely influential elsewhere. See also Calvin, John; Copernicus, Nicolaus; scientific revolution. Further reading: Cottingham, John, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Gaukroger, Stephen. Descartes: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995; Sorrell, Tom. Descartes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. William E. Burns Dias, Bartolomeu (c. 1450–1500) Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias, sometimes spelled Bartholomew Diaz, was an explorer for the Portuguese. He is best known for being the first European to round the southern tip of Africa, thereby establishing a sea trading route between Western Europe and Asia. Very little is known about Dias’s early life. Unproven tradition holds that he descended from one of Prince Henry the Navigator’s pilots. In the early 1470s, Portugal expanded trade with Guinea and other parts of Africa’s western coast. In 1481, voyages were ordered to ascertain the southern boundary of the African continent and stake claims. In 1487, Dias was ordered by King João II to reach the southern end of Africa to determine whether ships could reach Asia by sailing around Africa. Dias’s fleet of three ships, which left in August 1487, reached Walvis Bay on December 8 and Elizabeth Bay on December 26. Storms prevented him from proceeding along the coast during January 1488, so he sailed out of sight of land for several days. When he turned back toward land, no land was spotted. He turned north and sighted land on February 3. Dias unknowingly rounded the southern tip of Africa. It was clear India could be reached by sailing around Africa, so Dias turned back. Little is known of the return journey or of his reception by King João II. After his return, Vasco da Gama was authorized to continue along Dias’s route by King Manuel I, whom Dias accompanied for a time. On his return to Portugal, Dias commanded a ship that was part of a fleet commanded by Pedro Cabral. However, Dias did not survive the journey, as he died on May 29, 1500, near the Cape of Good Hope. See also Africa, Portuguese in; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Axelson, Eric. Congo to Cape: Early Portuguese Explorers. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973; da Mota, A. Teixeira. Bartolomeu Dias, Discoverer of Cape of Good Hope. New York: Attica Books, 1955. James E. Seelye, Jr. 104 Dias, Bartolomeu Díaz del Castillo, Bernal (c. 1492–1584) Spanish historian Author of one of the most widely read and important chronicles of the conquest of Mexico, The True History of the Conquest of New Spain (originally published in 1632; English translation published in five volumes in 1908–16), Bernal Díaz del Castillo was born in Spain in 1492, the son of magistrate Francisco Díaz del Castillo and María Díez Rejón. Journeying to Panama in 1514 with a military expedition led by Pedrarias Dávila, he then went to Cuba and participated in two initial reconnaissance expeditions of the Mexican gulf coast under Francisco Hernández de Córdoba and Juan de Grijalva. It was his experiences in the subsequent expedition of Hernán Cortés in 1519 that provided him with the raw material from which he penned his classic chronicle many years later. Lauded especially for its direct and plainspoken style—and criticized for its pedestrian rudeness—Díaz’s True History provides an intimate and unvarnished look at the conquest of Mexico from the perspective of a common foot soldier. Among the most oft-cited portions of his chronicle are those describing the Spaniards’s first sighting of the Aztec island-city of Tenochtitlán, the entry of Cortés’s army into the basin of Mexico, and the initial meeting between Cortés and Moctezuma II. Also frequently quoted is his remark on the mingling of religious and economic motives that propelled the Spanish conquests in Mexico and beyond. Intending to honor his fallen comrades, he wrote: “For they died in the service of God and of His Majesty, and to give light to those who sat in darkness—and also to acquire that wealth which most men covet.” This was a remark that the 19th-century historian William Prescott described as “a specimen of that naïveté which gives an irresistible charm to the old chronicler.” After the fall of Tenochtitlán, Díaz went on to accompany Cortés in his ill-fated trek across Central America, and later served under Pedro de Alvarado in the conquest of Central America. It was from his encomienda in Guatemala in the late 1500s that Díaz (who was, by his own description, an infirm, deaf, and blind old man) brought to completion his True History, begun years before and finished largely as a rebuttal to other chronicles of the conquest of Mexico that incensed him because he regarded them as filled with inaccuracies. Contemporary English translations have pruned many redundancies and excised many superfluous passages, trimming the original five volumes down to one and making The Conquest of New Spain one of the most gripping and popular accounts of one of the most consequential episodes in world history. See also voyages of discovery. Further reading: Díaz, Bernal. The Conquest of New Spain. New York: Penguin, 1963; Díaz del Castillo, Bernal. The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, 1517–1521. New York: Da Capo Press, 1996. Michael J. Schroeder Diet of Worms The Imperial Diet (German Reichstag) of Worms refers to Martin Luther’s legal appearance before Charles V in April 1521. There Luther defended himself before the civil government regarding the Roman Catholic Church’s condemnations of him as a heretic. The Protestant Reformation began on October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther was convinced that the practices of the church were in error but he did not initially see himself protesting against the leadership of the church; instead, he felt he was trying to bring reform to the church. Several debates and many tracts later, Luther had become a popular figure in Germany. For many reasons, Germans were unhappy with the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and resented the fact that Rome, rather than Germany, was telling German citizens what to do. In addition, there had been much maneuvering surrounding the 1519 election of Charles V. The pope and Rome were not in favor of Charles V’s election, and there was little love lost between these two powerful figures. Yet Charles V wanted to cooperate with Rome, if only to show that he (and not the pope) had the power over Germany and its controversies. In 1520 Pope Leo X wrote a document (papal bull) condemning Martin Luther, and describing him as a heretic. Luther was not excommunicated from the church at that time, but he knew it would not be long in coming. Yet Luther had political supporters in Germany, most notably several princes, including Elector Frederick the Wise, who was one of the small number of electors who chose a new emperor. When the controversy was brought to Charles’s attention in 1520, he did not want to interfere in a church affair, seeing potentially much to lose and little to gain in getting involved. After some negotiating, Diet of Worms 105 Charles agreed to a hearing at the next German diet in April 1521, as long as the princes agreed to support his decision, and they did. He agreed also to grant Luther safe conduct (a significant issue, as one who was named a heretic was technically an outlaw in the Empire and could be killed without penalty). Accompanied by an Imperial herald, in early April 1521, Luther slowly went from Wittenberg to the city of Worms, a journey of several hundred miles, preaching at several churches along the way. He was hailed as a hero by the townspeople in the various cities. Charles V was present when Luther arrived, conducting many other items of business. (The issue with Luther was only a small part of the schedule for the Diet.) On April 17, 1521, Luther appeared before Charles, the papal envoy Alexander, and the princes of Germany. On a table nearby were piled high all of Luther’s writings. There he was asked two questions—were the writings his, and would he retract them? Luther answered that the writings were his, but that he needed more time to consider the answer to the second question. Appearing the next day, Luther was asked again whether he would retract his writings, and his response was “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” While Luther is often credited as saying, “Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me. Amen,” most scholars believe this to be a later addition by one of Luther’s followers. A small committee was appointed by Charles to negotiate with Luther to see if he would retract portions of his statements. Luther was ready to admit that he overstated some of his attacks on the pope and church practices, but was unwilling to bend on any of his theological statements. Faced with an impasse, Luther was dismissed, with a letter of safe conduct for 21 days. On his journey back to Wittenberg, Luther was kidnapped by soldiers loyal to Frederick the Wise and secretly taken to Frederick’s castle in Wartburg where he stayed for several months until the initial reaction to the Diet had quieted down. See also Calvin, John; Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; justification by faith. Further reading: Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Pierce and Smith, 1950; Lewis W. Spitz. The Renaissance and Reformation Movements, Vol. 2, The Reformation. St. Louis: Concordia, 1971; Rupp, Gordon. Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms. New York: Harper, 1964. Bruce D. Franson dissenters in England The term dissenters refers to those who officially or unofficially separate themselves from an established or state church. This term is sometimes used interchangeably in the context of early modern English history with Nonconformists. However, nonconformity is a later development within the larger dissenter movement, usually denoting those who disagreed with the state church in both practice and principle. In England, religious dissenters did not constitute a single discernible movement or program but a series of protests against the established Church of England during the 16th to 18th centuries. While the history of religious dissent is as old as Christianity itself, dissent in England can certainly be traced to the time of John Wycliffe and the sect known as the lollards. Wycliffe was a 14th century English university professor whose greatest contribution was his translation of the Scriptures into the English vernacular. He believed that the Bible was the supreme authority for religious matters, that the clergy should not own property, and that the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation had no basis in Scripture. While his ideas were condemned by the Catholic Church, the later, more radical sect of the lollards adopted some of his views and continued on until the time of the English reformations in the 16th century, consequently setting the stage for later religious dissents. English dissenters began to appear once again during the time of the Protestant Reformation in England under Edward VI, Elizabeth I, the Stuart kings, and during and after the time of the interregnum of the English Civil War. Many of these had hoped for a purer reformation of religion in England and expressed their dissatisfaction with the efforts of the English monarchy to continue to control the established state church. During the reign of Elizabeth I, many of her Protestant advisers had also hoped for a reformation in England similar to the continental reformations. They desired a total break with the vestiges of the more liturgical and episcopal structures, which they felt were entirely consistent with the medieval Catholicism from which they had separated. During this period, dissenters and Nonconformists began to refer to the group now commonly known as Puritans. Many of these English Puritans disliked both the structure of the 106 dissenters in England episcopacy and an established state church. They began to separate themselves from the Church of England and have their own private meetings. While Elizabeth I would attempt to get her clergy to conform, many of these dissenters would continue to spread their ideas about church government and worship, attracting more followers. In 1620, a group of these dissenters would sail to America on the Mayflower and settle in New England in attempt to find religious freedom in the New World. Consequently, they transplanted their own religious dissent to America profoundly shaping both early American religion and national identify in the process. During the time of the English Civil War (1642–51) and the interregnum (1649–60), the dissenters seized power and abolished the Church of England. They began to practice iconoclasm, destroying churches and stained glass and imprisoning many of the Anglican bishops. Parliament was now the head of the Church of England and it quickly instituted a more presbyterian form of church government. The Westminster Assembly now became the sole and permanent committee dedicated to the reform of the English Church. In May of 1660, Charles II was restored to the throne of England from exile in France. He made attempts to ensure some sort of religious toleration with his Declaration of Indulgence. However, the now mostly Anglican Parliament had forced him to withdraw this measure. Instead they passed what is known as the Clarendon code, which established Anglicanism as the true state religion of England and made overt threats toward any that might not conform. The Test Act of 1673 required all persons in civil or military offices to subscribe to the oaths of supremacy and allegiance and to affirm that they did not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Furthermore, they had to receive the sacrament of the Anglican Church within three months after admittance to office. Eventually, in 1689, Parliament passed the Toleration Act, which allowed the English people to practice whatever religion they desired so long as they were trinitarian Protestants. This act however did not suspend any of their civil disabilities that went along with their dissenting religion. The Test Act, which was expanded in 1678, was not suspended until 1828. In 1829, Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act, which began to give freedom to Roman Catholics to practice their religion freely for the first time since before the Reformation. Consequently, many of the dissenters in English religious history survive in present-day Christian denominations. Many of these are now known as “Free Churches.” Some of these are Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Quakers, and Moravians. See also Stuart, House of (England). Further reading: Burrage, Champlin. The Early English Dissenters: Dissent and Nonconformity. Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2000; Collinson, Patrick. The Religion of the Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559–1625. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; Edwards, David L. Christian England, Vol. 2: From the Reformation to the 18th Century. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983; Haigh, Christopher. English Reformations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993; Spufford, Margaret, ed. The World of Rural Dissenters, 1520–1725. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. T. W. Booth divine faith in Europe Between 1730 and 1760, western Europe experienced a revivalist movement that advocated acceptance of the divine faith doctrine. This movement later came to be known as the First Great Awakening. The title was used to differentiate this first rise in evangelical revivalism from the second wave of religious fervor that surfaced between 1800 and 1801, which become known as the Second Great Awakening. During the First Great Awakening, the acceptance of the divine faith doctrine in Europe was most prevalent in England, Scotland, Wales, and Germany, although the movement also received a good deal of attention in Ireland, Holland, Switzerland, Sweden, and France. At the same time, a similar but separate revivalist movement took place across the Atlantic in the United States. Despite the common factors in the teachings of the various evangelists, the divine faith movement was not a single movement but a large number of highly individualistic movements that surfaced around the Western Hemisphere. In addition to Anglicans and dissenters in England, the Protestant sects that endorsed divine faith included Calvinists and Arminians in England, Presbyterians in Scotland, Lutherans and Pietists in Saxony, and Puritan Congregationalists in New England. All proponents of the divine faith movement advocated a strong faith in the divine will of God. Most of them taught that conversion must come from a heartfelt acceptance of Christian teachings rather than from a blind acceptance of religious dogma or from confessional conformity. Advocates taught that God was actively involved in shaping history and that he was constantly guiding the divine faith in Europe 107 day-to-day activities of believers. To the early evangelicals, prayer was the means by which chaos could be averted. Therefore, it became the responsibility of all believers to intercede for those who did not understand this fact. Believers were also encouraged to pray for one another. The divine faith movement was built around four cornerstones: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. To the evangelical, converting others to the faith had been a major element of Christianity since the formation of the early church following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Activism was, therefore, a foregone conclusion because all believers were required to reach out to those inside and outside their own churches and countries. These two concepts had been the motivating forces behind the practice of sending missionaries to the farthest reaches of the globe since the founding of the early church. Because the basis for all Christian faith comes from the Holy Bible, the insistence on biblicism reminded believers that they were to be led by the Word of God and to refrain from following false prophets. The concept of crucicentrism was intended to keep the focus of the Christian on Christ, who gave his life on the Cross of Calvary to save the world from the darkness of sin. The overreaching goal of the early evangelical movement was, therefore, to bring about a global fellowship of all humans who worked together to understand and advance the will of God. The time of the First Great Awakening has been called the age of faith as well as the era of pietism and the era of evangelism. The motivation for spreading the doctrine of divine faith arose from the Protestant determination to mitigate the effects of the age of Enlightenment, which had intrigued most of the upper and educated classes in western Europe and the United States with its emphasis on reason and individualism. Advocates of the evangelical movement taught that many things should be accepted on faith alone because some things could never be proved by science. the good of humankind The concept of individuality was viewed by early evangelicals as counterproductive because it encouraged people to promote their own interests rather than working for the good of all humankind. Instead of emphasizing the concept of the scarcity of resources that was a significant element in the classical liberal thought that had gained momentum in the age of Enlightenment, proponents of divine faith taught that God had granted humans dominion over nature and animals, which were to be used to better the lives of all humans. Members of the lower and working classes who were more inclined than others to accept the theory of divine faith without reservation attended revivals in large numbers, resulting in a rapidly increasing number of converts. In autumn 1729, the widely celebrated and respected Episcopalian minister George Whitfield (1714–70), known as the “apostle of the British Empire,” traveled to the United States, where he converted large crowds of Americans to the divine faith movement. Whitfield was considered the founder of Methodism, a name that at the time was loosely and sometimes derisively used to refer to all evangelicals. Whitfield was strictly Calvinist in his beliefs, although he was instrumental in shaping the beliefs of Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists as well. Throughout his lifetime, Whitfield preached 18,000 sermons, an average of 500 a year. While in America, Whitfield publicly broke with John Wesley (1703–91), the founder of the official Methodist Church and one of the great evangelists of the period. Wesley taught that through grace Christians were capable of realizing a state of perfect love with God. He encouraged his followers to become involved in fighting injustice wherever they found it. Whatever their commonalities, Whitfield and Wesley were unable to reconcile their divergent beliefs on salvation theology. Wesley believed that when babies were born, some had been predestined to become Christians, while others had not. To Whitfield, salvation was a personal experience that was derived from conscious choice rather than from predestination. Henry Venn (1796–1873), who became the leader of the second wave of evangelistic fervor, was heavily influenced by both Whitfield and Wesley. However, he found himself treading a middle path between the doctrines supported by these prominent evangelists. To Venn, clemency and humanitarianism were irrevocably joined to moralism and to the avoidance of sin. Together, the influence of these three evangelists ignited reform movements in education and penal systems, and their teachings were instrumental in planting seeds that blossomed into antislavery movements, which in turn led to the eventual abolition of slavery. See also Calvin, John; justification by faith; Puritans and Puritanism. Further reading: Babbington, D. W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1990s. London: Routledge, 1989; Fagan, Brian M. Clash of Cultures. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira, 1998; Jones, David Ceri. “A Glorious Work in the World”: Welsh Methodism and the 108 divine faith in Europe International Evangelical Revival, 1735–1750. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2004; Tracy, Joseph. The Great Awakening. New York: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969. Elizabeth Purdy Dominicans in the Americas When the first wave of Spanish explorers and invaders came to the Americas, they were accompanied by a few clergy who served the sailors and military personnel as chaplains, but none of any note belonged to the Dominican order. However it was a Dominican bishop, Diego de Deza, who first sponsored Christopher Columbus at the Spanish court and afterward took credit for Spain’s opportunity to claim the West Indies. In 1508, the master of the Order of Preachers, Thomas de Vio (also known to history as Cajetan), called for 15 Dominican friars to be sent from the University of Salamanca in Spain to the island of Hispaniola (modern Haiti and Dominican Republic). The first four friars arrived in 1510 at Santo Domingo and quickly made that stronghold their base of operations. They learned the indigenous language and proceeded to minister to both Spaniards and the local people. It did not take them long to become critical of the treatment of the natives by the Europeans. These early friars refused the comfortable accommodations that were offered to them by the colonizers and instead moved into a simple hut where they began to share in communal life and common prayer and give support to each other’s ministry of preaching. Dominican criticism of the Spanish who were forcing natives to labor in mines and on estates is recalled in a number of early sermons aimed at colonists, soldiers, and representatives of the Crown. In 1512, Dominicans traveled back to Spain and brought their criticisms of the Caribbean encomendero system and its human rights violations directly to King Ferdinand V. Certain compromises with the Crown were put into effect in the form of modified laws that gave natives some protection, putting an end to child labor, as well as the exploitation of Native women. The conversion to the Dominican order of a Spanish secular priest in the Caribbean, Bartolomé de Las Casas, proved to be instrumental in the struggles of the church against Native oppression. Bartolomé had come with the conquerors in 1502 and was given a huge portion of land to administrate, sharing in the fruits of Native exploitation and forced labor. In 1524, he took on the Dominican habit and gave up his estates in Cuba. Through his writings (particularly Historia de las Indias ) as well as his preaching and ministry, Bartolomé became an advocate for justice in the Spanish colonies. Dominican professors of theology like Francisco de Vitoria (1485–1546) at Salamanca in Spain had argued against slavery using Thomistic principles to support the case for basic human dignity. Francisco was one of the first to condemn the conquest of Peru by Francisco Pizarro, promoting instead a pastoral evangelization of the region. Francisco de Vitoria is best known for his treatises Relecciones de Indias and De jure belli. Julián Garcés, the Dominican bishop of Tlaxcala in New Spain, along with Las Casas and other friars sent petitions to Pope Paul III to become an advocate for the rights of natives in the Americas. This resulted in the 1537 bull Sublimis Deus. In it Paul III wrote, “The Indians are truly men, and are not only capable of understanding the Catholic faith, but according to our information they desire exceedingly to receive it. . . .” This opened the door for continued missionary activity in Central and South America as well as the islands. Antonio de Montesinos was among the first party of Dominicans to land in North America, near Georgetown, South Carolina, in 1526. They build a small church, San Miguel de Gualdape, and a temporary settlement where the expedition’s leader, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, was to die a few months later. He was buried there. The following year de Montessinos abandoned the settlement and returned to the Caribbean where he was assigned by the Crown as protector to the natives of Venezuela. After some 15 years of service to the community in Venezuela, Friar Antonio was murdered by a Spanish officer in 1540. the maya and north america The Dominicans also sent missionaries to the Mayans. Luis Cancer, who served the community of Hispaniola as a young friar, was assigned in 1521 to the mission of San Juan in Puerto Rico. In 1542, he left San Juan to join Bartolomé de Las Casas among the Maya in Guatemala. The two friars learned the Mayan language and attempted to cooperate with the natives, delivering the message of the Gospel in the land the Spanish referred to as La Tierra de la Guerra (the land of war). Struggles between the Maya and Spanish had been ongoing in the region since the arrival of the invaders. Las Casas and Cancer even succeeded in translating Bible passages into Mayan song. Friar Luis traveled unescorted into their lands and was said to have been welcomed by the Mayan people. Dominicans in the Americas 109 Cancer next traveled to Florida in 1548 accompanied by a native woman and translator from the island of Hispaniola named Magdalena. She had been converted to Christianity by the Dominicans. The party landed on the west coast of Florida and Magdalena went ashore with Friar Diego de Tolosa and an oblate named Fuentes. Both of the Dominicans were killed and Magdalena was never found. The following year Luis Cancer was murdered near Tampa Bay during an effort by his landing party to make contact with the natives. Earlier expeditions to North America by Hernando De Soto in 1539 had resulted in battles between natives and some 600 Spanish soldiers near Mobile. Three Dominican chaplains had accompanied the voyage that sailed out of Havana. De Soto continued with his troops along the coast of Louisiana and ventured into parts of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. The excursion ended in 1543 with Juan Gallegos being the only friar to survive. Subsequent Dominican missions to Florida were attempted in 1559 and in the early 1560s. The first attempt by Tristán de Luna y Arellano and a talented Mexican preacher named Domingo de Salazar was abandoned for lack of food and terrible weather conditions. They were followed by Gregorio de Beteta, a former companion of the martyred Luis Cancer. The mission met with mixed success. Dominican foundations in Mexico had been highly successful as they were able to enlist both friars trained on the Continent as well as colonial Europeans born in the New World. They were reluctant however to accept Mesoamerican natives or even recruits of mixed blood. In 1526, they established a house in Mexico City. By 1555, the province of St. James in Mexico counted some 210 friars residing in 40 houses. In the fall of 1528, Dominicans developing southern missions reached the town of Huaxyacac (modern Oaxaca). Among the friars making that journey were Father Gonzalo Lucero and Bernardino de Minaya. A royal patent letter from Charles V bestowed upon Huaxyacac the rights of a city and it was given the name Antequera. They begin building the first Dominican priory there and dedicated it to St. Paul. By the 17th century, there were more than 70 priories functioning in the province of St. Hyppolitus in the Oaxaca area. It took more than 50 years fully to complete construction of a magnificent new priory named after Santo Domingo. In 1623, Santo Domingo became a university offering degrees in theology and philosophy for both secular and religious clergy. Peru Missionary work in Peru was initiated by the Dominicans when Vincent Valverde arrived in 1531. The Dominicans were successful in ministering to the Indians of Peru decades before Franciscan evangelizers. By 1544, the Dominican province in Peru had 55 members. Two of the most famous saints of Peru were Dominicans. Saint Rose of Lima (1586–1617) was a Creole and member of the third (lay) Order of St. Dominic. Rose spent most of her life as a contemplative, living at her parents’ home, wearing a coarse habit and living the vow of perpetual virginity. Her life was devoted to prayer, penance, and fasting. It has been recorded that she slept on broken glass, potsherds, and thorns. She also constructed a crown of metal spikes and wore an iron chain about her waist. Later in life, Rose retired to a small cell in the garden of her home where she spent her final days in prayer and mortification. Visions, revelations, and divine voices were visited upon her. Rose’s death was reputedly followed by numerous miracles and in 1670 she was canonized by Pope Clement X. Martín de Porres (1569–1639) was another famous Dominican saint of Peru. He was a mulatto from Lima, son of a free black woman and a white noble father. As a young man he received training as an apothecary (druggist), surgeon, barber, and physician. His skills were used to serve the poor. He became a lay associate of the Dominican monastery of the Holy Rosary and later joined the community as a lay brother. He spent his life healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and attending to abandoned children. Martin was also reputed to have the gifts of visions, mystical experiences, miraculous healing, and even bilocation. Interestingly, Saint Toribio, the archbishop of Lima, and St. John Massias (also a Dominican lay brother) were contemporaries of both Saint Rose and Saint Martín in Peru. The Dominicans maintained both urban and rural Peruvian missions, monasteries, and schools throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The conquest of Colombia by Spain in 1536 and its eventual unification with Venezuela in 1549 produced the Audiencia of New Granada. This quickly became the domain of Dominican missionary activity. However unlike their efforts in Mexico and Peru, the Dominicans began to develop small missions and schools rather than monastaries. By 1569, there were 40 small missions (or doctrinas); some 18 priories were also established. One of the leading Dominican figures in New Granada was Saint Louis Beltran (1526–81), who converted thousands of Natives to Christianity. The running of schools and universities was among the special talents of the Dominicans. At Lima and in Mexico City universities were founded in the 16th 110 Dominicans in the Americas century. In Guatemala the Real y Pontificia Universidad de San Carlos was recognized in 1676. Universities were also founded in Bogotá (1627), Quito (1688), and Santiago, Chile (first as a college in 1619 and then as a university in 1684). Faculties included studies in logic, history, physics, philosophy, mathematics, theology, and canon law. Early on, the Jesuits had begun to compete with the Dominicans in Latin America for students and had founded rival universities and colleges in Bogotá, Quito, Bolivia, and Santiago. During the 18th century, the Dominicans succeeded in establishing a university at Havana (1728), which was raised to the title of Royal and Pontifical University in 1734. The end of the 17th century saw a rise in the number of Dominican foundations for women. There were 22 houses in Mexico City, 10 in Puebla, and a male monastery outside Oaxaca that was turned into a convent for Dominican nuns. The education of Spanish, Creole, and Indian women was undertaken in a number of these convents. There were also separate convents for the education of the daughters of native chiefs (caciques). Indian women were rarely denied admittance to the Dominican order. The creation of female houses followed throughout the 18th century with convents established at Corpus Christi in Mexico (1724), Cosamalupan (1737), and Oaxaca (1782). See also encomienda in Spanish America; Franciscans in the Americas; Jesuits in Asia. Further reading: Ashley, Bededict. The Dominicans. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, Liturgical Press, 1990; Hinnebusch, William. The Dominicans: A Short History. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1975; Jay, Felix. Three Dominican Pioneers in the New World. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002; Friede, Juan, and Benjamin Keen, eds. Bartolomé De Las Casas in History. Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois Press, 1971; Mills, John O. Justice Peace and the Dominicans. Dublin, Ireland: Dominican Publications, 2001; O’Daniel, V. F. Dominicans in Early Florida. New York: United States Catholic Historical Society, 1930. Tim Davis Dorgon (1612–1650) prince regent of China Prince Dorgon was regent for his nephew between 1644 and 1650. He seized the opportunity offered by Ming general Wu Sangui (Wu San-kuei) to lead the Manchu forces inside the Great Wall and together to defeat the rebels who had seized Beijing (Peking) that ended the Ming dynasty. After defeating the rebels Dorgon placed his six-year-old nephew on the vacant throne. With this act, the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty was transformed from a frontier state to a national dynasty of all China. When Manchu leader Abahai died in 1643, the Manchu clan leaders assembled to elect a new ruler among his sons. Prince Dorgon, Abahai’s younger brother and the most able among the princes, successfully maneuvered to have five-year-old Fulin (Fulin) elected ruler, rather than an older son, so that he could be regent. An able statesman and warrior, Dorgon continued to consolidate central power and strengthened the bureaucratic style government established by his brother. As the weakening Ming dynasty was threatened by internal revolts Abahai prepared to invade north China. In April 1644, a rebel army led by Li Zucheng (Li Tsu-ch’eng) advanced on the capital city Beijing (Peking), taking the city before General Wu Sangui and his troops stationed at Shanhaiguan (Shanhaikuan) at the eastern terminus of the Great Wall of China could arrive to defend the city. General Wu then invited the Manchus to assist him against the rebels, an invitation that Dorgon was delighted to accept. Dorgon and Wu ousted the rebels and entered the city with their joint forces on June 6, 1644. While Wu and some Manchu units chased down the rebels, Dorgon remained in Beijing, buried the last Ming emperor and empress (who had committed suicide) with honor, declared that the Manchus had come to restore order, and placed his young nephew on the vacant throne as Emperor Shunzi (Shun-chih). He thus established a new national dynasty, the Qing (Ch’ing), that would last until 1911. He also confirmed most Ming officials in their positions, including the Jesuits who headed the Board of Astronomy; reduced taxes; and forbade Manchu imperial clansmen from interfering in administration. The defeat of Li and other rebels and immediate reforms won over many northern Chinese although it took several decades to end Ming loyalist movements in southern China. However one of Dorgon’s orders, that all Han Chinese men wear their hair in a queue as Manchu men did, greatly irritated Chinese sensibilities. Dorgon was a forceful administrator but his arrogance and autocratic style alienated many. He gave himself increasingly exalted titles, such as “Imperial Father Regent,” but was frustrated that he could not become emperor. A showdown between Dorgon and his nephew Dorgon 111 never occurred because he died in 1650 during a hunting trip. Shunzi then took over personal control but continued the successful policies of his uncle. Thus while Nurhahci and Abahai prepared the way for the rise of the Manchus, it was Dorgon who seized the opportunity to realize it. See also Jesuits in Asia; Ming Dynasty, late. Further reading: Michael, Franz. The Origin of Manchu Rule, Frontier and Bureaucracy as Interacting Forces in the Chinese Empire. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1942; Peterson, Willard J., ed. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 9, Part One: The Ch’ing Empire to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Drake, Francis (c. 1540–1596) English explorer Sir Francis Drake was an English mariner-adventurer, and sometime privateer, who circumnavigated the globe. Drake was born near Tavistock, Devon, England, not far from the important port of Plymouth. He came from a well-connected Protestant farming family, one of 12 children born to Edmund Drake. At approximately age 13, Francis went to sea on a cargo bark and eventually became the master of the ship at age 20. These early seafaring years spent in the North Sea built his experience as a skillful sailor and navigator and gave him a sense of command. When he was 23 he joined his cousin Sir John Hawkins and for the first time voyaged to the New World. In association with Hawkins, he undertook the initial English slavetrading expeditions to the New World. Drake discovered the lure of the Spanish Main with all its riches in silver, gold, and slaves. He disliked the Spanish from the onset, no doubt in part for their Catholicism, and in the 1560s, began his campaign against Spanish interests, appearing a pirate to some and a privateer to others. His raids demonstrated his bravado and determination, but almost cost him his life. Drake’s most famous attack came in 1573 when he took the Spanish Silver Train at the port of Nombre de Dios. Finding the silver too heavy to carry, he took all the gold he could and returned to Plymouth on August 9, 1573, with 30 survivors. Unfortunately, Queen Elizabeth I had undertaken a temporary truce with Philip II of Spain, and Drake’s exploits were not officially celebrated. In 1577, Queen Elizabeth, facing new Spanish hostilities, sent Drake with 150 men and five ships on an expedition against the Spanish interests on the Pacific coast of the Americas. Two ships had to be abandoned at Río de la Plata and the remaining three navigated the Straits of Magellan, making Drake the first Englishman to do so. The voyage continued to be difficult; another ship was destroyed, and still another separated and returned to England. Drake sailed along the coast of South America alone in the Golden Hind, attacking Spanish interests, plundering Valparaíso, and seizing cargo as he moved. He continued along the coast of North America looking for a passage to the Atlantic, possibly as far north as the present state of Washington. He stopped for supplies and repairs in San Francisco Bay and named the area New Albion. Drake now made the decision to cross the Pacific. He rounded the Cape of Good Hope and eventually returned on September 26, 1580, to Plymouth, laden with treasure. His exploits could not be denied even in the face of Spanish fury, and Queen Elizabeth knighted him. War with spain Another war with Spain in 1585 put Drake back in his element. He took command of a fleet and launched assaults against Vigo in Spain, São Tiago in the Cape Verde Islands, and the New World ports of Santo Domingo and Cartagena, as well as St. Augustine in Florida. In 1587, he “singed the King of Spain’s beard” with a preemptive and destructive raid on Cádiz, burning 31 ships and holding the town for three days in the process. This attack delayed the Spanish Armada sailing by a year. By the time the Spanish Armada sailed to England to invade in 1588, Drake was vice admiral in command of the English fleet. It was at this time that the famous Drake myth first appeared that had Drake enjoying a game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe as the Spanish fleet approached. Here he supposedly stated that he had plenty of time to finish the game before the Spanish arrived. The English fleet pursued the Spanish through the channel. Drake caught the rich galleon Rosario and Admiral Pedro de Vales in the process. On July 29, 1588, Drake and Lord Howard of Effingham organized the fire ships that broke the Spanish formation, causing damage that forced the Spaniards into the open sea toward Calais. The following day, Drake and the rest of the English fleet defeated the Spanish at the Battle of Gravelines. Drake’s final expedition against the Spanish occurred in 1595, supported by Hawkins. On this occasion, the Spanish inflicted defeat, particularly against Drake’s raids 112 Drake, Francis on San Juan, Puerto Rico. Hawkins died off Puerto Rico and Drake became ill from dysentery and died on January 28, 1596, while in the process of mounting a further attack on San Juan. Placed in a lead coffin, Drake was buried at sea with his crew burning the town of Puerto Bello as a dedication to his passing. Drake’s life was one of adventure and determination, which helped enrich England with his plunder. He established claims to the New World and made England a recognized naval power. See also piracy in the Atlantic world; ships and shipping; slave trade, Africa and the; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Kelsey, Harry. Sir Francis Drake: The Queen’s Pirate. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press, 2000; Marrin, Albert. The Sea King: Sir Francis Drake and His Times. New York: Atheneum, 1995; Sugden, John. Sir Francis Drake. London: Pimlico, 1996; Whitfield, Peter. Sir Francis Drake: British Library Historic Lives. London: British Library Publishing, 2004. Theodore W. Eversole Dutch East India Company (Indonesia/Batavia) The Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) is better known in English as the Dutch East India Company, a joint stock company formed in 1602 and granted a monopoly for all trade between the Cape of Good Hope and the Straits of Magellan. The VOC had a twofold purpose: first, to organize and promote Dutch trade in the East Indies, vital because the area produced extremely precious spices; second, to raise revenue for the Dutch War of Independence against Spain. In East Asia, the VOC was successful in evicting the Portuguese from their holdings and establishing a base at Batavia (modern Jakarta) from which to control the island of Java. In time, the VOC was transformed from a military-trading organization to administrator of a colonial empire. By 1799 the company’s usefulness had been outlived and because of corruption was dissolved by the Dutch government. From its inception the VOC was premitted by the Dutch government to enter into diplomatic relations with foreign powers and to engage in military actions to further Dutch interests, including seizing land and building forts. In Southeast Asia, Protestant Dutch and English contended for influence with Catholic Portuguese and French. While Portugal and France were interested in religious conversion of local people as well as trade, Britain and the Netherlands were primarily interested in commerce. Its first Dutch overseas base at Ambon was won from the Portuguese and used as a staging post for the import and reexport of pepper and other spices. It next established a permanent base on Java in order to play a greater role in trade throughout Southeast Asia. They selected a site and named it Batavia, which became their permanent headquarters. The VOC overcame local opposition with their superior weapons and the British decided to focus on India. The VOC gradually controlled all of Java and spread its influence to other islands. Through a series of naval campaigns, it attempted to create a monopoly of trade in the islands and so fought against local powers and against Indian and Malay states also. It gained control of land and regulated the growth of pepper and other crops. Dutch rule was harsh, forcibly relocating local people and exploiting them. In 1740, conflict broke out between the Chinese community in Batavia and Dutch officials. It became Dutch East India Company (Indonesia/Batavia) 113 England’s Sir Francis Drake and the British fleet defeated the invading Spanish Armada in 1588. known as the Chinese War and resulted in 10,000 Chinese deaths. By the end of the 18th century, the Dutch state had become exhausted by the effects of prololnged warfare in Europe, especially the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War of 1780–81. The VOC was also facing stiff competition from the British. It was dissolved in 1799 by the Dutch government, which decided to assume direct responsibility for overseas possessions. Java and other VOC holdings in the East Indies were transferred to the Dutch government. See also French East India Company; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Brown, Colin. A Short History of Indonesia: The Unlikely Nation? Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2003; Gaastra, Femme. The Dutch East India Company: Expansion and Decline. Zutphen, Netherlands: Walburg, 2003; Irwin, Douglas A. “Mercantilism as Strategic Trade Policy: The Anglo- Dutch Rivalry for the East India Trade.” The Journal of Political Economy v. 99, December 1991; Reid, Anthony. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450–1680, Vol. 2, Expansion and Crisis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. John Walsh Dutch in Latin America The Dutch presence in the Americas was integral to the worldwide competition for empire among European powers in the early modern era. Among the most important national actors in the newly discovered lands of the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Dutch rapidly lost influence and power to the French, English, and Portuguese in the mid-1600s, though their impact on the history of the Americas was profound and long-lasting. The Dutch influence in Latin America was greatest in Brazil, where they began to challenge Portuguese dominance in the 1620s. Dominated by Calvinists and fierce enemies of Catholic Spain in the great power rivalries of Europe, the Dutch began challenging Portuguese claims to Brazil soon after the union of the Portuguese and Spanish Crowns in 1580. Their first assaults on Portuguese and Spanish commercial interests began in West Africa in the 1590s, culminating in their 1606 attack on the Portuguese trading station of São Jorge de Mina, which after several attempts they captured in 1637, opening up the African trade to Dutch merchants. In Asia, too, the Dutch challenged Spanish and Portuguese dominance, seizing several key ports in India, Ceylon, and elsewhere and becoming a major commercial power in the seas and ports of the Middle and Far East. The upshot of these far-flung conflicts in the jockeying for power in Latin America was to make Brazil Portugual’s most important overseas possession, thus intensifying the Portuguese Crown’s efforts to solidify their hold on the colony. Eager to participate in the lucrative sugar trade, the Dutch formed their West India Company (WIC) in 1621, modeled after the Dutch East India Company, founded in 1602. The WIC’s goal was to weaken and plunder the Spanish and, where possible, to displace the Portuguese. Three years after the WIC was created, in May 1624, under the leadership of Piet Heyn, a massive Dutch force launched a military assault on the Portuguese Brazilian capital port city of Salvador (Bahia). Holding the town for nearly a year, the Dutch were expelled by a joint Spanish-Portuguese counterassault in April 1625. After failing to retake the port, the Dutch turned their attention north, to the port of Recife, at the heart of the sugar trade in the rapidly growing province of Pernambuco. With some 67 ships and 7,000 men, the Dutch attacked and took Recife and Olinda in 1630. They held the town and its outlying districts for the next 24 years, extending their influence along some 1,800 kilometers of coastline in Brazil’s burgeoning northeast. In keeping with the Netherlands’s mercantile orientation, Dutch rule in Brazil was characterized by an emphasis on trade; increased production of sugar, tobacco, hides, dyewood, and other tropical export commodities; and an overall policy of generalized tolerance toward Roman Catholicism despite a strong undercurrent of tension between Dutch Calvinists and Spanish and Portuguese Catholic monasteries and nunneries. The Dutch hold on the Brazilian northeast prompted the Portuguese Crown to redouble its efforts to strengthen its hold on the colony. Two years before taking Recife, in 1628, a fleet of 30 Dutch ships captured the Spanish silver fleet off the coast of Cuba—the only instance in which an entire Spanish flota (convoy) was captured by enemy forces. The Dutch victory stunned Europe, prompting Italian bankers to withdraw their credit from Spain, causing the Spanish Crown to intensify its efforts to find new sources of credit for their overseas enterprises, and ultimately leading to revolt by the Portuguese and Catalans. For the Dutch, the costs of defending their Brazilian holdings against Portuguese counterattacks, by land and by sea, proved very high, while the revenues gained by commerce in sugar, tobacco, and African slaves proved disappointingly low. In the 1630s, despite their 114 Dutch in Latin America frequent successes in plundering Portuguese ships, the Dutch began to rethink the extent of their commitment to holding Brazil. The Dutch regime in Brazil was governed by Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen (1637–44), who attempted to diversify agricultural production, extend the sugar zones, and institute mechanisms of nominal self-rule among the colony’s European inhabitants, including the Portuguese. In late 1640, Portugal revolted against Spanish domination, a few months after a Catalan revolt prompted largely by intensifying fiscal demands of Madrid. In December 1640, the Portuguese rebels threw off Spain’s rule and named the duke of Braganza as King João IV. In June 1641 the newly independent Portuguese Crown and the Netherlands signed a 10-year truce, though through the 1640s the Dutch continued to assault and chip away at Portuguese power in the Americas. By the late 1640s, as the costs of holding Dutch Portugal continued to rise, the Dutch leadership decided to cut the country’s losses and withdraw its forces, a withdrawal completed in 1654. During the period of Dutch rule in northeast Brazil, the WIC imported an estimated 26,000 African slaves. After their withdrawal from Brazil, the Dutch remained a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Elsewhere in the Americas, the Dutch also decided to cut their losses rather than pour more blood and treasure into enterprises they accurately calculated they were bound to lose. In the Treaty of Breda of 1667, the Dutch relinquished New Amsterdam to the English (renamed New York) but gained formal title to Suriname on the north coast of South America, as well as several islands in the Lesser Antilles, including Curaçao, St. Eustatius, Saba, and St. Maarten, the latter island shared with the French. Dutch sugar production in Suriname, their largest holding in the Americas, never approached that of the other sugar producing zones of the circum-Caribbean, a consequence of low Dutch population and the high cost of maintaining a viable sugar colony. By 1700, there were approximately 8,000 African slaves in Suriname, a substantial proportion of whom escaped from the sugar plantations into the interior, where they established Maroon societies and mixed with the region’s indigenous inhabitants. By the late 1720s, growing numbers of these “Bush Negroes” prompted the Dutch colonial state to launch a series of assaults on the interior, which nonetheless failed to defeat or dislodge the Maroon communities. In 1749, the Dutch concluded a treaty of peace with a Bush Negro leader, one Captain Adoe, though a major slave uprising rocked the colony in 1763, while hostilities between Dutch planters and runaway slave communities continued through the rest of the 18th century. See also sugarcane plantations in the Americas. Further reading: Bakewell, Peter. A History of Latin America. London: Blackwell, 1997; Blackburn, Robin. The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800. London: Verso, 1997. Michael J. Schroeder Dutch in South Africa The year 1652 marks the beginning of the Cape Colony, which started with the founding of Cape Town by Dutch commander Jan van Riebeeck, who worked for the Dutch East India Company, known in Dutch as the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC). The colony was situated halfway between the so-called Dutch East Indies and the Dutch West Indies. The early 16th century saw the start of many European nations, such as Spain and Portugal, pursuing the sea route rather than the land route to India and establishing a colonial global empire outside continental Europe. From the late 16th century, the Netherlands was a preeminent naval power. The Dutch founded the VOC trading company as early as 1602. They reigned supreme at sea, and dominated global commerce by the second half of the 17th century. This epoch coincides with the cultural flowering known as the Dutch golden age with such figures as the philosopher Baruch de Spinoza, the mathematician and physicist Christiaan Huygens, and the painter Johannes Vermeer. In 1647, while exploring a route to India, a ship named Nieuwe Haerlem ran aground in Table Bay. The survivors, including possibly the captain, Leendert Janszen, with some crew remained onshore for about a year to look after the shipment. Only 12 months later, a Dutch ship returned Janszen and his crew to Europe. Upon disembarking in Holland, Janszen wrote a feasibility report called Remonstrantie to the Council of Seventeen of the Dutch East India Company, in which he recommends the founding of a station where ships can resupply before sailing onto India. Jan Anthoniszoon van Riebeeck was later appointed by the VOC to establish the station and eventually founded Cape Town in 1652, which soon opened South Africa to white settlement. The town’s purpose was “to provide fresh water, fruit, vegetables, and meat for passing ships en route to India as well as build a hospital for ill sailors.” The development of Cape Town was slow at first, owing Dutch in South Africa 115 to crop failures and organizational chaos. Van Riebeeck advocated the introduction of more workers to save the colony and encouraged importation of slaves. Though the VOC did not send slaves for five years, captains on passing ships gave Van Riebeeck some in the meantime. In 1654, the first Cape-based slave expedition was sent to Madagascar and Mozambique and three years later the first group of slaves was brought to the Cape from Angola and West Africa to meet the needs of the construction of a solid station. Starting in 1655, Van Riebeeck’s exploration outside Cape Town eventually led to a war between the small colony and the local Khoikhoi (named Hottentots by the whites). The Khoikhoi were a pastoral people, inhabiting the coast of the Cape of Good Hope until the arrival of European colonizers. When Van Riebeeck left the Cape in 1662, the settlement had more than 100 colonists. The Netherlands lost many of its colonial possessions to the British when the motherland surrendered to French conquest led by Napoleon, and more territory annexation to the French from 1795 to 1814. Subsequently Great Britain seized the colony in 1797 during the Fifth Anglo-Dutch War, and annexed it in 1805. The Dutch colonists who remained after the British took over are now known as Afrikaners. Their language, Afrikaans, is derived from a creolized variety of a colonial dialect of Cape Dutch, influenced by both indigenous Khoikhoi peoples who speak the Khoisan language and the imported slave population. See also slave trade, Africa and the; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Van Der Merwe, P. J., and Roger B. Beck. The Migrant Farmer in the History of the Cape Colony. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1995; Elphick, Richard, and Hermann Buhr Giliomee. The Shaping of South African Society, 1652–1840. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1989. Spilhaus, Margaret Whiting. South Africa in the Making, 1652–1806. Cape Town: Juta, 1966. Céline Swicegood

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

Darwin, Charles (1809–1882) British naturalist The famous British naturalist Charles Darwin traveled around the world, wrote several books, and developed the theory of natural selection and evolution. Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, in the west of England. His father, Robert Darwin, was a wealthy doctor and fi nancier, and his mother Susannah (née Wedgwood) died when he was eight years old. He was a grandson of Erasmus Darwin, a prominent physician, on his father’s side and Josiah Wedgwood, from the pottery family, on his mother’s side. Charles Darwin went to Shrewsbury School and then to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine; he also learned how to stuff birds by a freed South American slave who worked at the Edinburgh Museum. His father was disappointed at his son’s lack of progress at Edinburgh and decided to move him to Cambridge. Darwin proceeded to Christ’s College, where he had the idea of becoming a clergyman and studied theology. It was during this time that he started collecting beetles and developing a keen interest in entomology. With the H.M.S. Beagle sailing to South America to chart the coastline, Darwin decided that he might join the crew as an unpaid assistant to the ship’s captain, Robert FitzRoy. Darwin realized that it would give him an unparalleled opportunity to study the geological features of many islands around the world, as well as to study wildlife. He had been inspired by accounts of the German explorer Alexander von Humboldt. His father was unhappy about the idea of a two-year voyage (it later turned out to last for fi ve years), but Josiah Wedgwood, his grandfather, supported the trip. Darwin set off on December 27, 1831, collecting and sending back large numbers of natural history specimens. The ship stopped at the Cape Verde Islands, and Darwin proceeded to study oyster shells and note the changes in the land. On arriving in South America, at Bahia (modern-day Salvador), Darwin went to study the rain forest. He was angered by the treatment of the slaves in Brazil. He spent some months in the rain forest and then in July 1832 went to Montevideo, Uruguay, which was going through one of its many confl icts after becoming independent. Darwin met the Argentine dictator General Juan Manuel de Rosas and found the way the Argentine government treated the people of Tierra del Fuego bordering on systematic extermination. The Beagle sailed to the Falkland Islands and then back to Argentina. In October 1833 Darwin caught a fever in Argentina and in July 1834 fell ill in Valparaíso. He spent a long time in Chile, climbing the Andes and studying the fossils in the Andean foothills. Darwin went to Peru and to the Galápagos Islands. Darwin proceeded on to Tahiti, New Zealand, and Australia, although he never went to the settlement in the north of the country that now bears his name. In D New Zealand, he was saddened at the treatment of the Maoris and even more disappointed in the way he saw the aboriginal people of Australia being treated. The Beagle then headed off to the Indian Ocean, where the ship called in at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Already formulating his idea of animal species developing over very long periods of time, Darwin started to try to draw some conclusions on the fi nal leg of his journey back to England, where he landed in October 1836, returning to Shrewsbury to rejoin his family. FIRST BOOK He received a £400 annual allowance from his father, and Darwin started a series of correspondences with other naturalists and geologists. On his return, Darwin wrote up his diary of the voyage as Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H.M.S. Beagle, which was published by Henry Colburn in 1839. Darwin began cataloging all the different species, and in a talk at the Zoological Society, the famous ornithologist John Gould told the audience that the birds on the Galápagos Islands were not a mixture of species but all ground fi nches that had adapted differently. This helped fuel Darwin’s ideas of evolution and natural selection. He became infl uenced by the ideas of Thomas Malthus and also by Harriet Martineau, a Whig political activist. Darwin developed the Malthusian ideas to form “natural selection,” by which, when an area was overpopulated, the strongest would survive; he never used the term “survival of the fi ttest,” although many later writers attributed it to him. During the 1840s Darwin was refi ning his concept of evolution but initially had no intention of immediately publishing his treatise on natural selection. By 1854 Darwin had fi nished working out the order in which many species had evolved and had written about 250,000 words when, on June 18, 1858, he received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, an English socialist and natural history enthusiast who was in the Malay Archipelago. Wallace raised a similar idea of evolution to that of Darwin, with extracts of both scholars’ work read at the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858. This encouraged Darwin to fi nish his book, which he called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin retreated to the North York moors when the book was released on November 22, 1859. There were 1,250 copies printed, and the entire stock had been oversubscribed by orders received by booksellers. As Darwin had suspected, the book caused a storm of protest, and he kept a book of press cuttings, review articles, satires, parodies, and caricature cartoons. Dissenters saw merit in his book, but the members of the Anglican community at Cambridge were upset at Darwin’s ideas, which they saw as directly challenging those in the Bible. Darwin, had deliberately not stated that he believed that humans had evolved from apes, but this was what many of his readers interpreted, with many reviewers talking about “men from monkeys.” This denied the special status of humans, but Darwin found support from Thomas Huxley, writing his own book Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature, which was published in 1863. CONDEMNATION However, Richard Owen, the head of the British scientifi c establishment, condemned the book, as did Sedgwick and Henslow, who had been tutors to Darwin at Cambridge. Darwin’s work was acknowledged in Prussia, where the zoologist Ernst Haeckel alerted the king of Prussia, who awarded Darwin a medal. Some German theorists were soon to go further, using the concept of evolution to develop ideas of Social Darwinism by which one type of man was more advanced than another. Darwin became increasingly unwell and took to his bed for many months during the 1860s. However, he continued to write more books, with six new editions of On the Origin of Species, and also some new works such as Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, published in 1868. He wrote The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which was published in 1871, and his The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals was published in the following year. His next books were titled The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom and The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. From 1876 until 1881 Darwin wrote his autobiography for his grandchildren. He had married his cousin Emma Wedgwood, the marriage service being an Anglican ceremony that was arranged in order to suit the Unitarians. He and his wife had 10 children, three of whom died young. In 1881 Darwin fi nished his book The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Action of Worms, which was to be his last published volume. He had an angina seizure in March 1882 and died on April 19. A funeral was held at Downe, where he had lived, and on April 26 he was 108 Darwin, Charles interred at Westminster Abbey, close to the last resting places of John Herschel and Isaac Newton. Darwin has been remembered in many ways. An expanse of water near the Beagle Channel is named the Darwin Sound. In addition, there are many species named after him, including the fi nches he collected from the Galápagos Islands. In 1964 Darwin College, Cambridge, was named after the Darwin family, and in 2000 the Bank of England replaced Charles Dickens on the £10 note with Charles Darwin. Although some historians still debate whether it was Darwin or Wallace who fi rst came up with the concept of evolution, Darwin is the person credited with the idea and the person who did the most to advance it to a stage where it is widely accepted around the world. Further reading: Barlow, Nora, ed. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–1882, with Original Omissions Restored. London: Collins, 1958; Bowler, Peter J. Charles Darwin: The Man and His Infl uence. Oxford: Blackwells, 1990; Browne, Janet. Charles Darwin. London: Jonathan Cape, 1995; Desmond, Adrian, and James Moore. Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, 1991; Irvine, William. Apes, Angels and Victorians: A Joint Biography of Darwin and Huxley. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1956. Justin Corfi eld Declaration of Independence, U.S. The foundational document of the Western Hemisphere’s fi rst republic, the fi rst genuinely republican government of the modern era, the U.S. Declaration of Independence emerged amid an escalating war as one culmination of a long process of struggle between the American colonists and Great Britain and from a protracted process of compromise and negotiation between factions of the propertied white males who drafted and ratifi ed it. The document itself contained little that was original. Most of the sentiments it expressed and theories of republican government it propounded had deep roots in the French and English Enlightenment, British-American history, and English common law. It nonetheless captured the spirit of an era, articulating in a single statement of uncommon eloquence the reasons behind the American colonists’ political break from Great Britain and the promise of political equality that, following the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, formed a cornerstone of the new American republic. Most delegates to the Second Continental Congress, which began its deliberations in Philadelphia in May 1775 in the wake of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, were hesitant to declare outright independence, despite the rapidly intensifying military confl ict. A broad consensus about the necessity of proclaiming political independence emerged only after King George III’s rejection of the Olive Branch Petition in late 1775 and the publication of Thomas Paine’s hard-hitting pamphlet Common Sense the following January. Three well-heeled Bostonians were among the most fervent advocates of independence: the merchant John Hancock, the lawyer John Adams, and his cousin, political agitator and onetime beer brewer, Samuel Adams. Declaration of Independence, U.S. 109 From left, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams review Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the declaration. The fi rst formal call for a resolution of independence came on June 7 from Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. In response, the congress appointed a committee to draft the resolution, composed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman. This committee, in turn, designated Jefferson to draft the actual document, which was subsequently revised by Franklin, John Adams, and others. On July 2 Congress approved a resolution of independence, and two days later adopted a revised draft of the declaration originally penned by Jefferson. Henceforth, July 4 would be known in the United States as Independence Day. Rooted in theories of natural rights articulated in previous decades by Enlightenment thinkers as diverse as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the document itself is divided into four parts: an introduction providing the moral and intellectual rationales for independence; a long list of complaints and grievances against King George III; its fi nal assertion of political independence from Great Britain; and 56 signatures, most affi xed on August 2 (mainly for logistical reasons, not all delegates who helped draft or voted for the declaration signed it). Many consider its second sentence to be its most socially radical, encapsulating the essential promise of political equality later codifi ed for adult white males in the Constitution and, in the 19th and 20th centuries, extended to ex-slaves and women: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence was not a law. Nor did it form the basis for the Constitution, adopted 11 years later. Mainly, it was a statement of principle that provided the essential rationale for the political break from Great Britain; an assertion of political unity among 13 distinct political entities in the context of a rapidly escalating military confl ict; and a moral touchstone for the radical experiment in political republicanism to follow. See also American Revolution (1775–1783); French Revolution. Further reading: Lancaster, Bruce. The American Heritage Book of the Revolution. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., 1958; Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf, 1997. Michael J. Schroeder Díaz, Porfi rio (1830–1915) Mexican dictator Remembered mainly as an iron-fi sted dictator whose political cronyism and suppression of the rights of Mexico’s poor and Indian peoples led to the Mexican Revolution, Porfi rio Díaz was a shrewd and canny ruler who used persuasion and cooperation as much as brute force to retain power. His regime made major strides in modernizing the Mexican economy and integrating it into the rapidly expanding structures of global capitalism. The period of his rule, known as the Porfi riato, was an era of major social and economic transformations. Under the banner of positivism, the Díaz regime systematically promoted capitalist development via free trade, foreign investment, the expansion of transport and communications infrastructure, and an expanding export economy (especially mining), while at the same time suppressing the rights of citizenship among the poor and disfranchised and the rapidly growing middle and professional classes. It was the mounting frustration of the latter classes at being shut out of the nation’s political life, combined with growing landlessness, poverty, unemployment, and desperation among the majority, that ultimately led to the collapse of his regime. Master of the strategy of pan o palo (“bread or stick,” with “bread” signifying cooptation and “stick” signifying violent suppression of dissent), Díaz dominated Mexico’s political life for more than a third of a century, while the social dynamics set in motion by his rule laid the groundwork for the decade-long civil war and social revolution that followed his overthrow in 1911. Born in Oaxaca in 1830, the son of a mestizo blacksmith father and half-Mixtec mother, José de la Cruz Porfi rio Díaz received a rudimentary education, dabbling in studies for the priesthood and law before fi nding his calling in the military. Allied with Benito Juárez and the Liberals, Díaz distinguished himself as a military commander in the War of the Reform and the resistance against French intervention, in which confl icts he gained wide fame and a large personal following. Defeated in the presidential elections of 1871, Díaz charged fraud and launched an abortive rebellion against the Liberal Juárez government. In March 1876, fi ve years after his fi rst uprising, Díaz issued his Plan de Tuxtepec, once again calling for “no reelection.” In November 1876, in the so-called Revolution of Tuxtepec, his forces occupied Mexico City and overthrew the elected government of Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada. 110 Díaz, Porfirio Under the positivist credo of order and progress and following the counsel of his coterie of advisers dubbed los científicos (loosely, “the scientific ones”), the Díaz regime endeavored to modernize every aspect of government and the economy while retaining a tight grip on the reins of political power. Foreign investment and economic growth surged, while a host of new inventions became integrated into Mexican life, including steam-powered electric generating plants, the telephone and telegraph, railroads, electric trams, manufacturing plants, and related modern technologies. The machinery of state was overhauled and streamlined, while the country’s public finances were put on a firm footing under Secretary of the Treasury José Limantour. To suppress rural banditry and organized dissent, Díaz expanded the Rurales, or rural police force, created by Juárez in 1872 and under Díaz comprised, in the main, of criminals and bandits put on the government payroll. The regime waged a series of wars against recalcitrant Indians, especially the Apache and Yaquí in the north. Díaz’s political cronies dominated the nation’s political life at all levels, while organized dissent of any kind was either gingerly coopted or ruthlessly crushed. By the early 1900s disenchantment with the regime mounted among both the rapidly expanding middle class and the masses of increasingly impoverished and desperate rural and urban dwellers. The regime’s demise came in 1911, following an uprising by wealthy Liberal landowner Francisco Madero, which in turn sparked the decade-long Mexican Revolution. Overthrown, the ailing 81-year-old Díaz was forced into exile. He died in Paris a few years later. See also Mexico, from La Reforma to the Porfiriato (1855–1876). Further reading: Beals, Carleton. Porfirio Díaz: Dictator of Mexico. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1932; Creelman, James. Díaz: Master of Mexico. New York: Appleton, 1916; Vanderwood, Paul. Disorder and Progress: Bandits, Police and Mexican Development. Rev. ed. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1992; Wells, Allen. Yucatán’s Gilded Age: Haciendas, Hennequen and International Harvester. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995. Michael J. Schroeder diplomatic revolution, European The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, ending the Thirty Years’ War, is considered the beginning of modern diplomacy in Europe. The treaty established the idea of nation-states by acknowledging the sovereign rights of individual countries. As such, conflicts came to revolve around issues related to “the state.” In 1713 the Treaty of Utrecht, ending the War of the Spanish Succession, formalized the fundamental principle of the new diplomacy— balance of power. The idea behind the doctrine dictated the preservation of the status quo, so that no one nation-state held authority over any other. If the balance of power shifted in favor of any member state, all other states had a vested interest to intervene, even if by force, in correcting the shift. In 1789 the French Revolution unleashed myriad ideas that threatened the balance of power in Europe. Fears spread among Europe’s elite that the lower classes would overthrow the old order, or ancien régime, through violence. Accordingly, European leaders aimed their diplomatic efforts at minimizing the Revolution’s influence. However, Napoleon I’s conquest of continental Europe in the wake of the Revolution shifted the balance in France’s favor nonetheless. Accordingly, a British-led coalition formed to counter the shift in power on the continent. In the aftermath of Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, the idea of equilibrium among the nation-states reemerged to preserve peace. As a result, Europe entered a period that would characterize the 19th century—the congress system, popularly known as the Concert of Europe, due to the spirit of cooperation it ushered in among the major European nations. The system’s intention was to enforce the peace settlement established by the Congress of Vienna following the defeat of Napoleon. Led by Austria’s Prince Clemens von Metternich, participants of the Congress—Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia—set the course of European affairs, agreeing to prevent future conflicts that would endanger each nation. Although differing ideologically, it was a formal pledge to keep events like the French Revolution and the American Revolution from unbalancing the status quo. Unfortunately, the revolutionary turmoil of 1848 signaled the end of the Concert of Europe. Triggered by events in Sicily and France, a wave of revolutions swept across the continent that marked the downfall of the ancien régime. Influenced by liberal reformers and dismal economic conditions, the poor working class and starving peasants reacted violently to the changes that had oppressed them. Doomed by broad reform goals and mediocre leadership, the uprisings were quickly suppressed with negligible affects on the European way of life. Despite a few exceptions—the diplomatic revolution, European 111 end of feudalism in the Habsburg Empire, the freeing of serfs in Russia—little changed other than the deepening of the socioeconomic conditions that had started the revolutions. In light of the chaos, the European nation-states isolated themselves from one another, concentrating efforts on their own national interests. By 1875 upheavals and nationalist sentiment undermined the congress system. Amid confl icts like the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, the Concert of Europe came to an end. At midcentury, diplomacy had become synonymous with the display of military force and the demonstration of military might. Ushering in an era of new imperialism based on creating empire for empire’s sake, it became the means for establishing trade partnerships, colonial outposts, and expanding and securing national interests, with considerable effect. The outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898 epitomized the nature of the new diplomacy: establish dominance or be dominated. With the Spanish defeat, the balance shifted from the European continent toward the United States at the close of the 19th century. However, it would take World War I to establish fully the new diplomatic paradigm. See also Napoleon iii; revolutions of 1848. Further reading: Bridge, F. Roy, and Roger Bullen. The Great Powers and the European States System, 1815–1914. London: Longman, 2004; Chapman, Tim. The Congress of Vienna: Origins, Processes, and Results. New York: Routledge, 1998; Mowat, Robert B. A History of European Diplomacy, 1451–1789. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1971; Taylor, A. J. P. The Struggle for Mastery of Europe, 1848–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Steve Sagarra Disraeli, Benjamin (1804–1881) British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, whose name would be inextricably linked with the growth of the British Empire, was born in London on December 21, 1804, to Isaac and Maria D’Israeli. Although England did not have the ugly record of anti-Semitism of other European countries, Isaac decided that assimilation into English society was the best path for his son. Although Isaac had his children, Benjamin, Sarah, Raphael, and Jacobus baptized into Christianity, he himself remained committed to Judaism. Isaac was a distinguished writer and passed the love of writing on to his son. After several failed attempts in politics, Benjamin was elected as the Tory (Conservative) Party representative in 1837 from Maidstone, in Kent, England. Coincidentally, this was also the year in which Victoria became queen, a woman whose life would be so closely connected to his. Although the Tory Party historically represented the nobility and the landowners, Disraeli was of the progressive wing of the party. Philosophically, he leaned more toward the Whigs, later known as the Liberal Party, and espoused the cause of the rising working class. The working class was increasingly exploited in the factories, mills, and mines of a rapidly industrializing Britain. Two years later, Disraeli married a wealthy widow, Mrs. Wyndham Lewis. In 1841 the general elections brought the Conservatives to power in Britain, and Sir Robert Peel became the prime minister. When Peel turned Disraeli down for a seat in his cabinet, Disraeli helped form the Young England group. This group attempted to redirect politics in the aftermath of the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832, the fi rst of several reform bills that would open the voting franchise to larger numbers of Britain’s working classes. The Young Englanders sought an alliance between the aristocracy of Britain, the backbone of the Tory Party since its formation in the reign of King Charles II, and the rising working-class poor. Although nothing came directly from these ideas, it characterized British political life in the 1840s. The group disbanded after the Maynooth Grant in 1845, the same event that led to William Gladstone’s resignation from the cabinet. CORN LAWS One of the cornerstones of Peel’s policy was the repeal of the Corn Laws, which kept the price of corn artifi cially high. This benefi ted landowners, who formed part of Disraeli’s constituency. Disraeli’s opposition to Peel’s program did not succeed, and the Corn Laws were repealed in 1846. But the divisiveness at least partly caused by Disraeli brought down Peel’s administration, leading to a Whig government led by Lord John Russell. When Russell resigned in 1852, Edward Stanley formed a Tory government in which Disraeli fi nally achieved his dream of a cabinet appointment, as chan- 112 Disraeli, Benjamin cellor of the exchequer. Stanley became prime minister two more times in his career, summoning Disraeli back to his post each time. Concurrently, Disraeli was leader of the House of Commons, which brought him into contact with Gladstone, the leader of Whigs. Pressure was building to extend the voting franchise. In a rare act of political unanimity, Gladstone and Disraeli joined forces to press for a second Reform Bill. While Gladstone did it out of his lifelong commitment for liberal causes, Disraeli functioned from a more complicated political calculus. If the Conservative Party did not embrace more progressive causes, it would become moribund. Due to their combined parliamentary weight, the second Reform Bill was almost assured to pass, and it did so in 1867. In the general elections of 1868, Gladstone became prime minister, and Disraeli lost his cabinet position. The elections of 1874, however, brought Disraeli to power as prime minister, the fi rst one totally dedicated to the expansion—and perpetuation—of the British Empire. Disraeli realized that support for the empire in a parliamentary democracy depended on the allegiance of the growing industrial classes. To support this segment of the population, Disraeli passed legislation that protected workers and trade unions. In his quest to make England a great empire, Disraeli found an ardent ally in Queen Victoria. At this time, the Suez Canal had made possible a rapid transit to the jewel of Britain’s imperial crown: India. By the early 1870s the khedive Ismail of Egypt had virtually bankrupted Egypt through his ambitious program of modernization. When the chancellor of the exchequer requested Parliament to approve funds to buy the khedive’s shares, Disraeli delivered an impassioned speech urging approval. Parliament was convinced that the purchase was a strong move. In August 1876 Victoria raised Disraeli to the peerage as Lord Beaconsfi eld; he was compelled to leave the House of Commons. Still, he continued to serve as prime minister. In 1878 Disraeli faced the fi rst major foreign crisis of his administration. In 1875 the Christian population of the Balkans rebelled against their overlords in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Revulsion over the thousands killed again united Gladstone and Disraeli. In April 1877 Czar Alexander II declared war on the Turks. The Russians and their Romanian allies were delayed for months by the Turkish defense of Plevna (Pleven) in Bulgaria, from July to December of 1877. But after Plevna fell, the Russians and Romanians seemed determined to press on to fi nish off the Turkish empire and take its capital of Constantinople. Such a grab for power was unthinkable to Disraeli, when Russia already was in a position, through its rapid conquest of the khanates of Central Asia, to threaten British India. WAR FOOTING Consequently, Disraeli put Britain on a war footing such as had not been seen since the war scare with France years earlier. The British Mediterranean fl eet cast anchor from its base at Malta, which Great Britain had gained during the Napoleonic Wars, and moved up to support the Turks by June 30, 1877. Any further Russian advance would meet the fi repower of the Royal Navy. On March 3, 1878, the Russians forced the Turks to sign the Treaty of San Stefano, which created a Greater Bulgaria, covering much of the Balkans. Disraeli and his administration considered a Greater Bulgaria, which would have a Russian force present, as merely another stop toward a future Russian move to take over what remained of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. With the Congress of Berlin ending the Balkan crisis in 1878 and the invasion of Afghanistan in the same year to prevent it from becoming a Russian satellite, Disraeli showed not only his belief in the British Empire, but also his determination to use both the British navy and land forces to defend it. Although Disraeli and the Conservatives were beaten in the general election of 1880, he had made his mark as perhaps the greatest of Victorian imperialists. As for Disraeli himself, he returned to writing at the end of his political career. But after the publication of Endymion in 1880, Disraeli fell ill and died on April 19, 1881. Queen Victoria personally attended his funeral and burial at Hugenden. See also Bismarck, Otto von; Industrial Revolution. Further reading: Gerolymatos, Andre. The Balkan Wars. New York: Basic/Perseus, 2002; Hil, J. R., and Bryan Ranft. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Kinross, Lord. The Ottoman Centuries. New York: Morrow Quill, 1977; Thornton, A. P. The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies. New York: Anchor, 1968; Watts, Anthony J. The Royal Navy: An Illustrated History. Annapolis, MD: US Naval Institute Press, 1994. John F. Murphy Disraeli, Benjamin 113 Dost Mohammed (1793–1863) Afghani leader Dost Mohammed Khan is remembered as a powerful and charismatic ruler who reigned over Afghanistan from 1826 until his death in 1863 and made signifi cant attempts to unite the troubled country. The times in which he ruled were turbulent in Afghanistan because rival clans struggled for power against one another, even as various members of those clans fought among themselves as they attempted to gain ascendancy by unseating those who were already in power. Dost Mohammed’s reign also coincided with the period in which Great Britain and Russia were vying for control of Asian lands that they had identifi ed as essential to their expansionist goals. From the beginning, Dost, which means “friend,” was faced with repeated attempts to unseat him that arose from the jealousy of his numerous brothers and nephews. His most serious rival was Shah Shujah al- Moolk, the Afghan king and cousin whom he had deposed. Their rivalry was part of the continuing battle for power in Afghanistan that existed between two branches of the Durrani clan. Shah Shujah represented the Saddozai, while Dost was a member of the rival Barakzai clan. When Shujah left Afghanistan, he took his entire harem and royal jewels, including the famous Koh-i-noor diamond. Once in power, Dost Mohammed declared himself the Amir-al-momineen of Afghanistan, the “Commander of the Faithful,” which allowed him to exercise almost totalitarian power. In order to protect himself from his numerous enemies, the Dost set up his power base in Kabul and surrounded himself with a limited bureaucracy composed of his sons and matrimonial allies. This move also eradicated a good deal of the crime and corruption that had fl ourished under previous monarchs. He also banned the sale of alcohol and intoxicating drugs and curtailed gambling and prostitution. In 1834 his rival Shah Shujah began a revolt against Dost, who was victorious, but was unable to regain control of Peshawar, which had been taken by the Sikhs. To gain support, Dost Mohammed encouraged his subjects to view his campaign against the Sikhs as a jihad (holy war). On April 30, 1837, an Afghan force of some 30,000 men and 50 cannons faced the Sikhs in the Battle of Jamrud. When the battle was over, the Afghans had lost 1,000 men, but the cost to the Sikhs had been twice that. Despite the Afghan victory, Sikh leader Ranjit Singh retained his hold on Peshawar. However, Dost Mohammed had succeeded in establishing a regular Afghan army for the fi rst time. This army was made more powerful by the use of the long-barreled muskets made by Kabul gunsmiths that were better than the guns used by the British army in India. With Dost in fi rm control of Afghanistan, both the British and Russians began to court his favor. Generally, Dost favored British efforts to block Russian and Persian advances. However, he was also willing to turn to the Russians if the British failed to meet his demands. The British government then dispatched Sir Alexander Burnes to Afghanistan to meet with Dost and agreed to return Peshawar to Afghanistan to promote stability on the frontier. In 1857 Dost concluded a comprehensive alliance with the British by which he received an annual subsidy from Britain, although he remained neutral when the Indian Mutiny occurred in 1857. Britain became convinced that he presented a threat to British control of India. Subsequently, Britain attacked Afghanistan and convinced various chiefs to support them against Dost Mohammed. With diminishing forces, Dost was soon reduced to fi ghting with only a couple of hundred men. Eventually, he tired of living the life of a fugitive and surrendered in 1840. The British treated him with full respect and installed him and his family in a mansion. However, his ambitious son Akbar refused to join them, attacked Kabul, and slaughtered 16,000 British soldiers and the English there. Finally, Britain decided to restore Dost to power, but to implement a hands-off policy in Afghan affairs. In May 1863 Dost conquered the City of Herat, unifying the remaining areas of Afghanistan under one rule, but he never recovered Peshawar, which is now part of northwestern Pakistan. Dost was succeeded by his fi fth son, Sher Ali Khan, but he was challenged by his brothers and Afghanistan continued to be wracked by civil wars. Further reading: Gankovsky, Yu V. A History of Afghanistan. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1985; Macintyre, Ben. The Man Who Would Be King: The First American in Afghanistan. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2004. Elizabeth Purdy Douglass, Frederick (c. 1817–1895) U.S. abolitionist and reformer Born into slavery in Maryland, Frederick Douglass became the most signifi cant African-American leader of the 19th century. Son of fi eld hand Harriet Bailey 114 Dost Mohammed and an unnamed white man (perhaps his first master, Aaron Anthony), Douglass became a powerful antislavery orator, newspaper publisher, backer of women’s suffrage, adviser to Abraham Lincoln, banker, and diplomat. When he was about seven, Douglass’s mother died, and her child, then called Frederick Bailey, was sent to Baltimore to serve Hugh and Sophia Auld, relatives of the family on whose plantation he was raised. Sophia, in violation of law and custom, began to teach the youngster to read; her husband instructed Frederick in shipyard skills that would eventually prove his passage to freedom. As Douglass wrote, “A city slave is almost a freeman compared with a slave on the plantation.” Family deaths, remarriages, and disputes over slave “property” threw Douglass’s almost tolerable life into chaos. Underfed and cruelly treated, sent to a remote area near Chesapeake Bay, he was hired out to be “broken” into an obedient field hand. After several unsuccessful escape attempts, in September 1838 he made his way to New York City and thence, with help from abolitionists and his future wife, freewoman Anna Murray, to the port of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Douglass would write three autobiographies that remain a key source of information about his life and thought. The first of these, his Narrative, published in 1845 when Douglass was still a fugitive, galvanized the American antislavery movement and forced Douglass into exile in Britain, where he lectured to huge crowds. He returned to the United States in 1847 after English supporters paid $700 to secure his freedom. Douglass soon started a freedom newspaper, North Star, and resumed his work as an abolition orator. He delivered his most famous speech in Rochester, New York, on July 5, 1852. “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?” he asked. “I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham. . . .” In 1848 Douglass attended the meeting at Seneca Falls, New York, that launched the drive for equal rights for women. Douglass would later fall out with important members of the women’s suffrage movement over the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution that, in 1870, would grant voting rights to male former slaves while still excluding women of all races. During the Civil War, Douglass helped convince President Lincoln to allow blacks to fight for the Union and publicly urged free blacks and escaped slaves to enlist. More than 200,000 did so, paving the way for full citizenship at the war’s end. Douglass’s later years in Washington, D.C., mixed achievement and disappointment. He held a number of federal positions, including a posting to Haiti, but his participation in a Freedmen’s Savings Bank ended badly. His remarriage to a white woman was condemned by both whites and blacks. He lived to see the emergence of new racial restrictions, suffering some of their indignities himself. Dying of a heart attack on February 20, 1895, after attending a women’s rights meeting, Douglass lay in state in a Washington, D.C., church. He is buried in Rochester’s Mount Hope Cemetery. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas. Further reading: Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas. Edited and introduced by Houston A. Baker, Jr. New York: Penguin Classics, 1986; McFeely, William S. Frederick Douglass. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. Marsha E. Ackermann Dreyfus affair In 1894 Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was accused of giving military secrets to the Dreyfus affair 115 Born a slave, Frederick Douglass became the most prominent African-American voice for abolition in the 19th century. Germans. Although he steadfastly maintained his innocence, Dreyfus was tried and found guilty in a trial that was heavily infl uenced by widespread anti-Semitism within the upper echelons of French society and the military. The case became a cause célèbre that split French society between the pro-Dreyfusards (liberals) and the anti-Dreyfusards (conservatives). Dreyfus was sentenced to Devil’s Island prison off the South American coast, but his supporters continued to investigate the case and found that he had been used as a scapegoat to cover up for the real culprits, who were highly placed in French society. The French writer Emile Zola took up the case and published his famous article, “J’Accuse,” detailing the abuses in the case. Dreyfus was bought back for another trial and, although new evidence was presented, he was again found guilty. Dreyfus was fi nally freed on a pardon granted by the French president in 1899; however, his military rank was not restored until 1906. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism (Jewish nationalism), covered the Dreyfus case as a journalist. The prevalence of anti-Semitism in liberal France contributed to Herzl’s conclusion that Jews needed to have a state of their own where they would control the political, economic, and military institutions. Further reading: Bredin, Jean-Denis. The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus. Paris: Braziller, 1986, and London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1987; Cahm, Eric. The Dreyfus Affair in French Society and Politics. New York: Longman, 1996. Janice J. Terry

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

D-day Although it is a general military term, D-day has become synonymous with the Allied invasion of Normandy, France—code-named “Operation Overlord”— on June 6, 1944, during World War II. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin called on the Allies to open a second front in western Europe. By May 1943 such a plan had become the Allies’ number one priority. At a meeting held in Quebec, Canada, Lieutenant General Frederick Morgan, chief of staff to the Supreme Allied Command, presented a preliminary plan to the Allied leadership. With input from Lord Louis Mountbatten, chief of the British War Department’s Combined Operations Division, Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery, and numerous others the invasion plan began to take shape; by D-day close to 30,000 civilian and military personnel had worked on the plan in some capacity. Officially, “Overlord” was the overall designation for the Allied offensive that would run from June to August 1944; the naval and beach assault operations on the day of June 6 were code-named “Operation Neptune,” with various related operations, such as airborne drops, given their own code names. To gain a foothold on mainland Europe and liberate it from Nazi occupation, “Neptune” involved a strategy of coordinated attack from the air, sea, and land that culminated in an amphibious assault by Allied forces—composed of U.S., British, and Canadian troops—upon the German-held beaches of Normandy in northern France. In December 1943 American general Dwight D. Eisenhower was chosen as supreme Allied commander, with three British commanders in charge, respectively, of air, sea, and land forces: Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh- Mallory, Admiral Sir Bertram H. Ramsay, and Field Marshal Montgomery. Likewise, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder, the deputy supreme Allied commander, and General Walter Bedell Smith, Eisenhower’s chief of staff, supervised the massive logistical task of coordinating the men and materials needed for the invasion. Before settling on Normandy, Allied commanders had considered the Pas de Calais, the narrowest point in the English Channel between England and France. However, Mountbatten felt that although Normandy was farther away, it offered an ideal location for two main reasons: long, sheltered beaches that would be less defensible, theoretically, than Calais and two large ports vital to the invasion fleet, Cherbourg and Le Havre, which could be captured by land. As commander of all ground forces, Montgomery pushed for five beachheads, which Eisenhower endorsed—“Utah” and “Omaha,” assigned to the American-led Western Task Force, and “Gold,” “Juno,” and “Sword,” assigned to the Britishled Eastern Task Force. Both task forces comprised the 21st Army Group, consisting of the British Second Army, commanded by Lieutenant General Sir Miles Dempsey; the Canadian First Army, commanded by General Henry D. G. Crerar; and the U.S. First Army, commanded by Lieutenant General Omar N. Bradley. For the Germans, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt commanded all forces in western Europe D (Oberbefehlshaber West), consisting of Army Groups (Heeresgruppen) B and G; Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commanded Group B, which was given the task of defending the channel coast. Because of the fight with the Soviet Union that reduced troop strength in the west, Adolf Hitler charged Rommel with shoring up gaps in the coastal defenses that exposed Germany’s western flank to invasion. Coined the “Atlantic Wall”—consisting of concrete bunkers, gun emplacements, and varied obstacles on land and in the sea that extended along the English Channel, the Atlantic, and the French Mediterranean— by May 1944 the Germans had poured close to 18 million cubic meters of concrete and placed over half a million obstacles. Rundstedt and Rommel disagreed, however, on how to defend against an Allied threat. Rundstedt pushed for a central reserve farther inland that could counterattack once Allied intentions were known; Rommel, on the other hand, advocated confrontation at the point of invasion, with the strongest units readied to “push them back into the sea.” With neither willing to concede, a plan developed that encompassed both ideas—which would prove ineffective in the end. the calais deception Despite the Allies’ choice of Normandy, Calais still played an integral part in their plan. Many in the German High Command, most notably Hitler himself, believed Calais to be the genuine target of any Allied offensive against the mainland. Through a deception 76 D-day Troops land on the beaches of Normandy, June 6, 1944. Code-named Operation Overlord, the amphibious landing by American, British, and Canadian troops led to the liberation of France and the eventual surrender of German forces in World War II. operation known as Operation Fortitude, the Allies broadcast fake radio traffi c and invented nonexistent armies that pointed toward an invasion at Calais. Hitler and the High Command, headed by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, believed that any actions by the Allies against the mainland would simply be a diversionary tactic to draw away from the real target of Calais. Consequently, the Germans concentrated a majority of their best reserves, including the powerful 15th Army (Armee Oberkommando), in the Pas de Calais region, with the weaker 7th Army stationed at Normandy—a maneuver that would prove costly when D-day arrived. Originally planned for May 1, 1944, the invasion date was set for dawn on one of three days—June 4, 5, or 6. Imperative that a combination of moonlight and high tide coincide in order to aid, respectively, the airborne and beach landings, Allied commanders chose June 5. However, unfavorable weather conditions caused Eisenhower to delay for 24 hours. The next optimal window of opportunity not until late July, Eisenhower made the decision to proceed with the invasion. Just after midnight on June 6, the American 82nd and 101st and British 6th Airborne Divisions landed by parachute and glider on the Cotentin Peninsula behind German lines in support of the amphibious landings only a few hours away. Throughout the previous month the Allies had conducted a bombing campaign against key areas of northern France to destroy German communications. In addition, French resistance, having received word of the impending invasion, sabotaged communication lines and railroads to delay German mobilization even more. The three airborne units, tasked with the further disruption of German capabilities, were to secure the fl anks of the beaches, capture strategic bridges and causeways for Allied use, and destroy other key bridges that the German counterattack could utilize. For the British 6th, assigned to capture the bridges spanning the Orne River and Caen Canal and protect the left fl ank of Sword Beach, mission execution was near fl awless. Commanded by General Richard Gale, the division quickly completed its objectives within hours of landing in France and with very little mishap. They had only to hold their position to await relief from the main attack force and keep German reinforcements—specifi cally the armored tank units— from advancing on the beaches. Unfortunately, the same could not be said for American paratroopers. Due to poor visibility, German antiaircraft fi re, and inexperienced pilots who had not fl own in such conditions, both the 82nd and the 101st found themselves scattered across the peninsula. Nevertheless, per their training, units that failed to reach their designated zone were to carry out the missions assigned to the area in which they found themselves. As a result, mixed units were able to assemble, organize, and achieve objectives on a limited scale. Ironically, German commanders became confused as to the Allies’ intended target due to this situation, thus failing further to mobilize against the impending invasion. As the airborne units carried out their missions, an Allied armada—the largest ever in history, which included close to 1,000 warships and 4,000 transport ships—made its way from assembly areas in southern England toward the Normandy coast. Having cancelled coastal patrols, the Germans were unaware of the Allied advance across the English Channel. Around 5:00 a.m. a sustained Allied naval bombardment and assaults by bomber aircraft commenced against the German defenses on Normandy. The seaborne troops then began their approach to the fi ve beaches by transport ships. The fi rst ashore were elements of the U.S. 4th Division, landing at approximately 6:30 a.m. on Utah under intense German fi re. South of their target zone they faced lighter resistance than anticipated, thus minimizing expected casualties, and advanced rapidly up the beach to gain their objective. Only a few minutes later elements of the U.S. 1st and 29th Divisions landed at Omaha, where intact obstacles and fi erce opposition bogged down subsequent waves of soldiers and equipment. The congestion made the Americans easy targets for German gunners, resulting in the worst casualty rates of the entire invasion force—estimated at close to 95 percent for the fi rst wave alone. Pinned by enemy positions atop the high bluffs that dominated the beach, many units suffered losses close to 60 percent and higher, which threatened the assault’s success. On the three other beaches the results were just as mixed. Landing around 7:30 a.m. on, respectively, Sword and Juno, the British 3rd Division, which also included French commandos, and the Canadian 3rd Division met typical conditions—obstacles that hindered their progress and strong opposition as well as the capacity to advance rapidly onward. Thanks to continued naval bombardments that suppressed German defensive fi re, both divisions were able to move inland by early afternoon. However, the British 50th Division, landing on Gold only a few minutes before, encountered an almost identical situation to what D-day 77 the Americans found on Omaha. Despite continual deployment of troops, the division could not secure the beach until after nightfall. By the end of the day, close to 150,000 Allied troops had landed in France. In spite of heavy losses, although lower than expected, and the day’s slow advance, which did not push inland as far as planned, the invasion was a dramatic success for the Allies. Further reading: Ambrose, Stephen. D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995; Gilbert, Sir Martin. D-Day. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley and Sons, 2004; Harrison, Gordon A. “Cross Channel Attack.” www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_ cont. htm (cited April 2006); ———. Cross Channel Attack. New York: BDD Promotional Book Co., 1951; Hastings, Max. Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984; Jennys, David R. “D-Day’s Mighty Host.” World War II Magazine, May 1998; Taylor, John M. “Screaming Eagles in Normandy.” MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, summer 2004; Wilson, Theodore A., ed. D-Day, 1944. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1994. Steve Sagarra Debs, Eugene V. (1855–1926) U.S. labor leader and socialist Born in Terre Haute, Indiana, Eugene Victor Debs was a homegrown socialist at a time when most people in the United States reviled socialism as a European import. Debs ran fi ve times for president, winning his largest vote total when he campaigned in 1920 from an Atlanta prison cell. A central fi gure in two railroad unions, Debs led an 1894–95 strike against Chicago’s Pullman Car Company and later spoke out against U.S. participation in World War I. Debs, the son of Alsatian immigrants, dropped out of school at 14 to help support his family. By 1870 he was a railroad fi reman, and in 1875 he helped organize a Terre Haute lodge of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, a national craft union founded in New York in 1873. A skilled and forceful writer, Debs was soon editing the union’s national magazine. He would continue as editor even after he resigned from the brotherhood in 1891. Meanwhile, Debs was also active in local politics. As a Democrat he served two terms as Terre Haute city clerk and was elected in 1885 to the Indiana general assembly. He was a supporter of women’s suffrage, inviting controversial suffragist Susan B. Anthony to speak in Terre Haute and, as city clerk, declining to fi ne prostitutes as long as their customers went free. In 1893 Debs organized the new American Railway Union (ARU). Unlike the brotherhood, the ARU would be less a fraternity than a mass worker organization, making it an important departure from Samuel Gompers’s craft-based American Federation of Labor (AFL). With the U.S. economy sinking into depression, Debs in April 1894 engineered a successful strike against the Great Northern Railway. The union’s 18-day stoppage ended with an ARU victory and a membership upsurge. A month later Debs and his new union found themselves in a much more diffi cult situation. George Pullman, a Chicago entrepreneur who had made a fortune building luxurious private train cars for elite travelers, had also built a beautiful but paternalistic workers’ town just outside the city. The sagging economy caused Pullman to slash wages, but rents and prices at Town of Pullman company stores stayed the same while laid-off workers lost their homes as well as their jobs. Reluctantly, Debs mounted a boycott on behalf of striking Pullman workers. It was crushed by federal troops because other unions, notably the AFL, withheld their support. When Debs and the ARU defi ed a back-to-work injunction, lawyer Clarence Darrow, later famous for the Scopes trial, defended them, but Debs was jailed for six months in 1895. The Pullman strike ended Debs’s formal union leadership but made him a national fi gure and fi ve-time presidential candidate who campaigned as a Socialist in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920. Whistle-stopping across the United States in a “Red Special Train,” Debs attracted enthusiastic crowds, but his third party garnered few votes. He achieved a 6 percent vote share in the 1912 election; in 1920, as “Federal Prisoner 9653,” Debs won almost 914,000 votes. In June 1918 in Canton, Ohio, Justice Department agents listened as Debs spoke against the war, blaming Wall Street’s “master class.” Convicted under Woodrow Wilson’s wartime Espionage Act, Debs was sentenced to 10 years. His health failing, Debs was released in December 1921 by President Warren G. Harding. One of Debs’s fi nal acts was to donate his prison release money to the Sacco and Vanzetti Defense Fund. See also Sacco-Vanzetti trial. Further reading: Salvatore, Nick. Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1982; Schneirov, Richard, Shelton Stromquist, and Nick Salvatore, 78 Debs, Eugene V. eds. The Pullman Strike and the Crisis of the 1890s: Essays on Labor and Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Marsha E. Ackermann Diagne, Blaise (1872–1934) Senegalese politician Gaiaye M’Baye Diagne was born on the island of Gorée, the old slave trade base, in 1872. His energy and intelligence attracted the attention of wealthy mulattoes (people of mixed race), who sponsored his education at a religious school, where he was baptized as Blaise. Diagne was educated in Senegal and France and entered the French colonial administrative service in 1891. He served in a number of administrative posts in parts of the French West African empire. In 1909 he married a Frenchwoman. A proponent of assimilation and African rights as equal participants in French political and cultural life, Diagne became the fi rst black African member of the French parliament in 1914. He became the fi rst African member of the French government when he was appointed commissioner of the republic in West Africa in 1918; in the 1930s he became undersecretary of state for the colonies. During World War I he was particularly active in recruiting Africans to serve in the French army. Large numbers of Africans from throughout the huge French West African empire served with distinction during the war, but many were disappointed by their subsequent treatment as inferiors once the war was over. Diagne’s vision of assimilation was not realized, and many former African soldiers in the French army consequently became active supporters and leaders of the nationalist movements that struggled to secure independence from the French in the fi rst half of the 20th century. Further reading: Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press, 1981. Janice J. Terry dollar diplomacy During the 30 years before the Great Depression, the United States used a policy of loan-for-supervision, also called dollar diplomacy, with countries that it perceived as unstable. Dollar diplomacy was the U.S. policy encouraging private loans to countries in exchange for those countries’ accepting fi nancial advisers. This became a way for the government to advance its policies in the face of fi scal and institutional constraints such as Congress. It was believed that the professional advisers would help the targeted countries (China, many in Latin America, Persia, and Poland) reorganize their fi nances and create an infrastructure that would bring stability and allow for a large volume of trade. Along with the increase in trade would come a rise in the standard of living of the people in the targeted country and in the process increase the markets for U.S. goods. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the control the United States gained over the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico, opposition grew to the point that policy makers assumed that the United States could not make any more territorial gains by force. Yet many people, including anti-imperialists, believed that the United States had an obligation to create commercial ties to developing countries. Even after World War I, when U.S. policy was viewed as isolationist, the United States did not try to avoid foreign entanglements. At fi rst policy makers tried to tie in commitments from the U.S. government to secure the loans, but this required the approval of Congress. Therefore, to avoid Congress the policy was changed to use fi nancial experts to help stabilize a given country, and the U.S. government’s involvement was reduced. It was the job of the experts to introduce reforms to the host country’s fi nancial structures. These included putting the country on a gold standard, creating a central bank, and using strict accounting practices. These reforms were seen as being modern and scientifi c. Unfortunately, not all the countries receiving this help found it to their liking. In a number of cases dollar diplomacy was viewed as just another form of imperialism. In most cases the advisers did not speak the language of the countries they were assigned to, nor did they know the cultures of the countries. There was also the issue of the advisers’ salaries. They expected to be paid based on U.S. standards of pay, which meant they were lavishly paid by local standards. To the locals these men seemed more interested in their own wellbeing than in that of the local population. There was also disagreement in the United States about dollar diplomacy. As the years passed more people saw it as imperialism and exploitation in a different guise. Antibanking factions saw the policy as nothing more than a way for bankers to make more money for themselves and that the U.S. policy was being held dollar diplomacy 79 hostage to these profi ts. As the arguments against dollar diplomacy grew sharper and the quality of the loans deteriorated, the government tried to extract itself from the fi nancial entanglements, which in turn reduced the confi dence in the loans. By the early 1930s the government was working hard to detach itself from international economic affairs. It did not want to accept any of the responsibility for either international economic stability or losses of the bondholders. Further reading: Holden, Robert H., and Eric Zolov. Latin America and the United States, A Documentary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States, A History of U.S. Policy Towards Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998; Schulzinger, Robert D. American Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; Vesser, Cyrus. A World Safe for Capitalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. DuBois, W. E. B. (1868–1963) African-American activist In a life spanning nearly a century William Edward Burghardt DuBois was one of the most brilliant, contentious, and signifi cant leaders in the post-slavery United States. A sociologist and the founder of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), DuBois wrote extensively on issues of race—the “problem of the color line”—and worked to achieve equality for African Americans weighed down by poverty and prejudice. Disillusioned with U.S. racial politics, DuBois late in life became a communist and left the United States for Africa, where he died a citizen of Ghana at age 95. DuBois was born in Massachusetts just after the Civil War. As part of a tiny black minority, he suffered occasional racism, but not until he attended Fisk College in Nashville, Tennessee, did he see fi rsthand how emancipated slaves and other people of color were treated in the former Confederacy. By 1895 DuBois had become Harvard University’s fi rst black Ph.D. DuBois’s most infl uential book was published in 1903. The Souls of Black Folk is a meditation on history and race that lyrically describes what both whites and blacks need to do to overcome the “two-ness” that keeps African Americans from equal participation in U.S. society. More controversially, the book launched a stinging attack on Booker T. Washington, a former slave who as head of Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute encouraged blacks to (temporarily) accept inferior status. Soon DuBois’s critique of the nation’s best-known black leader turned him from academic to activist. In 1905 DuBois and 28 other opponents of Washington’s accommodationist policies met secretly in Buffalo, New York, once a stop on the underground railroad, to assert new roles for African Americans. Their public meeting in Fort Erie, Canada, soon followed. A year later members of this Niagara Movement met at Harper’s Ferry, the site of John Brown’s 1859 raid. Although the “Niagarites” failed to attract a large membership, they signaled a new militancy. In 1909 DuBois’s group joined with liberal whites who were shocked by rising racial violence to form the NAACP. For 25 years DuBois served the NAACP as editor of The Crisis, using the magazine to focus attention on racism and African-American demands. His scorching editorials often offended other black leaders and white supporters, but circulation and membership soared. Unlike many others, DuBois encouraged blacks to fi ght in World War I, later acknowledging that soldiers’ sacrifi ces had not translated into white respect or greater equality. During the 1920s DuBois helped to publicize the Harlem Renaissance but feuded with Jamaican Marcus Garvey, whose populist Universal Negro Improvement Association had very different goals and methods for racial uplift. By the 1930s DuBois, who had once encouraged racial integration, was developing a separatist ideology similar to what in the 1960s would become the Black Power Movement. Leaving the NAACP in 1933, he returned to academia. From Atlanta he questioned the desirability of school integration and espoused Pan-Africanism for black people around the world. He also saw in the Russian Revolution an ideology that might overcome racism, although he did not offi - cially become a communist until age 95. A foe of imperialism and nuclear weapons, DuBois was deemed a subversive by the U.S. Justice Department during the cold war. Although acquitted, DuBois soon after expatriated himself to Ghana. He died there a day before Martin Luther King, Jr., led the Civil Rights March on Washington. Further reading: Lewis, David Levering. W.E.B. DuBois: Biography of a Race, 1868–1919. New York: H. Holt, 1993; ———. W.E.B. DuBois: The Fight for Equality and the 80 DuBois, W. E. B. American Century, 1919–1963. New York: H. Holt, 2000; Wolters, Raymond. DuBois and His Rivals. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002. Marsha E. Ackermann dust bowl Dust bowl is a term coined by an Associated Press correspondent when he described the drought conditions that affected the residents of 27 states as they struggled to grow wheat in the unforgiving weather conditions of the “dirty thirties.” The American South, primarily the plains of Kansas, western Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, and the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma, was the most affected area as a cyclical meteorological phenomenon dropped Pacifi c Ocean air far to the south, preventing the normal introduction of moist weather from the Atlantic Ocean into the Plains. The national and international demand for wheat, a less drought resistant crop, was high during and immediately after World War I; Plains farmers, eager to reap high profi ts, began the “great plow-up” using poor farming techniques that led to soil erosion. Grasses and native plants that had served as windbreaks were overplowed in the quest to produce more wheat; farmers believed that “rain follows the plow.” But the rain did not follow these farmers’ plows; instead, it stopped. Amid record high temperatures, dust storms increased in number and intensity, carrying away millions of tons of topsoil and depositing the dust as far away as the East Coast. Before a storm, residents blocked their windows and doors with wet cloths but still shoveled dust out of their homes with wheat scoops afterward. Drought and overfarming led to the dust bowl in the American heartland through the 1930s. Millions of acres of topsoil were swept away. The drought led to signifi cant changes in agricultural practices. dust bowl 81 The American Red Cross issued calls for facemasks for children who were contracting “dust pneumonia,” dead cattle were found with three inches of dirt in their stomachs, people spit up what looked like chewing tobacco, and starving jackrabbits came down from the hills to menace the land and devastate small gardens. Frustrated and overwhelmed, one of four families left the area, earning the nickname “Exodusters.” John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath chronicles the Joad family as it migrated toward the West Coast in search of employment picking crops. After Black Sunday, April 14, 1935, the date of the worst dust storm, a day many believed was the end of the world, the New Deal created programs that determined the farmers were responsible for soil and water erosion, and Congress established the Soil Conservation Service under the direction of Hugh Bennet. New plowing techniques were initiated, lands were allowed to lay fallow, crops were rotated, plantings that retained topsoil were introduced, and a 100-mile-wide tree belt from Canada to Texas was proposed; these methods reduced blowing soil by 65 percent. In the fall of 1939 the rains returned, and with the onset of World War II and the end of the Great Depression the Plains were once again fl ush with wheat. Further reading: Egan, Timothy. The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl. New York: Mariner Books, 2006; Gregory, James Noble. American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989; Low, Ann Marie. Dust Bowl Diary. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. John Mayernik

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Dalai Lama, 14th (Tenzin Gyatso) (1935– ) Tibetan Buddhist leader The Dalai Lama has been both the temporal and the spiritual leader of Tibet since the 16th century. Tibetans are followers of Vajrayana (Vehicle of the Thunderbolt), or Tantric Buddhism, and believe that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (Chenrezig in Tibetan, and Guanyin or Kuan-yin in Chinese). In 1578 Altan Khan, a Mongol ruler (Mongols also follow Vajrayana Buddhism), conferred the title Dalai Lama (meaning ocean of wisdom) on an eminent Tibetan lama, and since he was viewed as the third reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara, he became known as the Third Dalai Lama. He resided at the Potala Monastery in Lhasa. The Fifth Dalai Lama, called the Great Fifth, conferred the title Panchen Lama or Panchen Rimpoche (meaning the Great Gem of Learning) on his teacher, declaring that he was the reincarnation of Amitabha Buddha, or the Buddha of Light. The Panchen Lama presided at Tashilhunpo Monastery in Shigatse. Called Living Buddhas, they headed the Tibetan theocracy. When one died a committee of senior lamas would be appointed to find his reincarnation, directed by omens and signs. In 1933 the 13th Dalai Lama died and a search began for his reincarnation. They found him in a twoyear- old farmer’s son named Tenszin Gyatso in 1939 and enthroned him as the 14th Dalai Lama in Lhasa. In addition to his traditional education, he was taught Western subjects by an Austrian adventurer and Nazi Heinrich Harrar, who had escaped internment by Great Britain in India. In 1950 the government of the newly founded People’s Republic of China announced its intention of taking control of Tibet, which had enjoyed autonomy, with minimal interference from China, for over half a century. Tibetan efforts to enlist aid from India, Great Britain, the United States, and the United Nations failed because no nation recognized Tibet as an independent state. As the Chinese army advanced, the Dalai and his court fled to India in December 1950, carrying with them the contents of the treasury. The authorities in Lhasa bowed to the inevitable, traveled to Beijing (Peking) in 1951, and signed a Seventeen Point Agreement that granted Tibet large measures of autonomy. With that the Dalai returned to Lhasa. In 1954 the Dalai and Panchen Lama traveled to Beijing to attend the meeting of China’s National Assembly representing Tibet. In Beijing he met with Chairman Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) and Premier Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai), and found many of their government’s policies commendable. Relations between the Dalai Lama’s court and the Chinese government began to deteriorate when China pushed for changes and reforms and expanded its control. Tibetan resentment of Chinese repression led to violence that culminated in an armed uprising in Lhasa in 1959. Fearing detention by the Chinese, the Dalai, his family, and his entourage left Lhasa in disguise on March 17, 1959, and crossed into India on March 30. They were given a cordial welcome by the Indian government, including a visit by Prime Minister Jawaharlal D Nehru, and were granted political asylum, along with about 13,000 other Tibetan refugees. They were allowed to set up a government in exile in Dharmsala, located in the foothills of the Himalaya Mountains. Since 1959 the Dalai Lama has visited many countries worldwide speaking on behalf of his people and their plight. He has been a most effective spokesman for the Tibetan cause because of his charisma, fluency in English, and peaceful approach to conflict resolution. His numerous writings on Tibetan Buddhism and culture and his personal philosophy are known worldwide. In the process he has demystified the oncemysterious Tibet and the theocracy headed by a Living Buddha. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Since 1988 he has also become more flexible on the future of Tibet, abandoning demands for independence in favor of autonomy within China. See also Tibetan Revolt (1959.) Further reading: Dalai Lama. My Land and My People. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962; Marcello, Patricia Cronin. The Dalai Lama: A Biography. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2003; Schell, Orville. Virtual Tibet, Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2000. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Darfur In 1989 a civil war began in the African nation of Sudan after an officer in the Sudanese army, Omar al- Bashir, seized power through a coup d’état. The roots of this war are complex, including struggle over limited resources following a serious drought and famine in the mid-1980s, conflicting conceptions of the use of land, ethnic tensions between southern and northern peoples, and religious tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. In addition, in a more recent development, the cultivation of oil fields in southern Sudan led the government to engage in widespread destruction of longstanding villages to profit from the production and sale of oil. Throughout the entire process the government used food and resources as weapons, often pitting different ethnic groups against each other and withholding humanitarian aid to force the population to abide by its policies. In the 17 years after the civil war began, fighting displaced more than 4 million Sudanese and killed at minimum 2 million, many of them targets of ethnic cleansing and starvation by their own government. After 2003, government brutality focused on the western region of Sudan, known as Darfur. The tensions in this region were directly linked to the ongoing struggle between pastoral and sedentary communities over land use. In 1989 this region was divided into three states: North Darfur, with its capital at Al-Fasher; South Darfur, with its capital at Nyala; and West Darfur, with its capital at Al-Jeneina. In February 2003, in response to insurrection, the, government sent in its troops, bolstered by Arab paramilitary groups known as janjawiid (roughly “armed men on horseback”), predominantly drawn from this region. In retaliation for the continued insurgency and the defiance of the civilian population, these two forces implemented a scorched-earth policy, eliminating both people and communities in a wide swath of destruction. They burned villages, destroyed crops, and stole livestock. Satellite imagery indicates that almost 50 percent of villages were completely destroyed in the western and southern regions of Darfur. Government forces and the janjawiid bombarded communities with 116 Darfur The spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, the Dalai Lama continues to tour the world to speak on behalf of his people. aerial assaults, confiscated property, and poisoned local water supplies in order to displace millions of people. In addition to all these acts of destruction, government troops and the janjawiid murdered civilians, abducted thousands of villagers, and participated in hundreds of rapes of women and girls. Conservative estimates place the death toll in the collective region of Darfur at 200,000; other estimates range to 400,000. The majority of the deaths were due to starvation and disease, exacerbated by the government’s refusal to allow humanitarian aid, safe passage, and distribution. In early 2006 violence persisted in the region as government troops and the janjawiid destroyed non-Arab villages and drove refugees into camps along the neighboring border with Chad. The Sudanese government was directly connected to this process. The Sudanese government refused to allow humanitarian aid to flow freely into the region, to disband the janjawiid, to investigate consistently mass violence against civilians, to allow observers from the United Nations or nongovernmental agencies to document the crisis, or to permit United Nations peacekeepers on its soil. See also Islamist movements; Sudanese civil wars (1970–present). Further reading: Amnesty International. Darfur: Too Many People Killed for No Reason. London: International Secretariat of Amnesty International, February 2004; ———. Sudan: At the Mercy of Killers—Destruction of Villages in Darfur. London: International Secretariat of Amnesty International, July 2004; Human Rights Watch. Sudan. Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan 16, no. 5A (April 2004); Rünger, Mechthild. Land Law and Land Use Control in Western Sudan. London: Ithaca Press, 1987; de Waal, Alex. Famine that Kills: Darfur, Sudan. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Laura J. Hilton Day, Dorothy (1897–1980) U.S. religious activist Dorothy Day was a peace and social justice activist, journalist, and writer who cofounded the Catholic Worker Movement, with the aim of enabling the needy to support themselves with dignity. Day developed a concern for the poor at an early age. Her family endured the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. When her family lived in Chicago, she often wandered into the poor tenement districts to observe the life there. At the age of 16, Day won a scholarship to the University of Illinois at Urbana, where she studied journalism. At various times throughout her life she protested against conscription, championed women’s and African-American rights, and called for an end to war. Day was jailed numerous times for her participation in nonviolent demonstrations. Day aborted her first child to please her lover, who deserted her. She was married briefly to an older man before entering a common-law marriage with a scientist. The birth of her daughter Tamar prompted a spiritual awakening that led her to the Catholic Church. She became a devout Catholic, attending daily Mass and immersing herself in Scripture. Day’s particular concern was to find an equitable way of life by which people could “feed, clothe, and shelter themselves as God intended them to do.” She felt the solution was a return to the land and worker ownership of the means of production. In 1932 she met Peter Maurin, a poor French Catholic immigrant. Together they formed the Catholic Worker Movement. The Catholic Worker was a journal Day and Maurin used to spread the news of the movement. They also formed Catholic Worker houses of hospitality and farms, where people would live together and share their resources with one another. These venues pitted the gospel against the realities of human weakness, often with disappointing results. Viewed in her time as a revolutionary, Day’s radicalism as she applied it to the gospel now inspires many to view her as a saint. Pope John Paul II approved the opening of her cause for canonization in 2000. Further reading: Day, Dorothy. The Long Loneliness. San Francisco: Harper, 1980; Koenig-Bricker, Woodeene. Meet Dorothy Day. Cincinnati, OH: Servant, 2002; Mitchell, Patricia. A Radical Love: Wisdom from Dorothy Day. Ijamsville, MD: The Word Among Us, 2000. Lucy Scholands Democratic Progressive Party and Chen Shui-pièn (Chen Shui-bian) After its defeat in the civil war the Republic of China (ROC), led by the Nationalist Party (or Kuomintang, KMT), fled to Taiwan, an island province, while the Chinese Communist Party ruled the mainland, called Democratic Progressive Party and Chen Shui-pièn (Chen Shui-bian) 117 the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Fearing invasion by the PRC and to ensure stability on Taiwan, the Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek prohibited the formation of opposition parties and imposed martial law in 1949; non-KMT candidates could nevertheless compete as independents or nonpartisans in local elections. Although most citizens accepted the restrictions as a necessary price for living a relatively free and increasingly prosperous life, some criticized the mainlander-dominated KMT for monopolizing national power. Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975. His eldest son, Chiang Ching-kuo, was elected president in 1978 and reelected in 1984. Ching-kuo left important legacies. One was political reforms that included ending martial law in 1987, granting full freedoms, and allowing the formation of competing political parties. He also declared that no member of the Chiang family would succeed him and promoted highly educated younger people, including native-born Taiwanese, to power. One was his vice president, Taiwan-born Lee Teng-hui. Unlike the chaotic political changes during the same period in the Philippines and South Korea, Taiwan’s transition to democracy was peaceful. In 1986 a previously “illegal” political party became legal. It was called the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and gained about 20 percent of the popular votes in legislative elections that year. After Chiang’s death in 1989, Lee Teng-hui accelerated the pace of political reforms and won two terms as president. Fractures within the KMT caused by Lee’s policies resulted in the victory of DPP candidate Chen Shui-bian (born 1950) a lawyer, in the 2000 presidential elections with 39 percent of the popular vote (compared with 60 percent combined votes for the KMT and its splinter People First Party candidates). Chen won a second term in 2004 with a very slim majority, but the KMT and its allies won a comfortable majority in the legislature. Taiwan’s stable democratic transition with a competitive party system was remarkable. However, it was accompanied by a new kind of corruption, locally called “black and gold politics,” that is, crime and money influencing the political process, a situation unknown under authoritarian rule. Chen Shui-bian was popular among some Taiwanese for promoting a local identity and a thinly veiled goal of separating from China. Since the PRC regarded Taiwan as a renegade province and has not disavowed force to compel it to rejoin the motherland, Chen and the DPP’s policies have heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait. And after China became Taiwan’s second-largest trading partner in 2000, Chen’s political stance and corrupt rule resulted in a downturn in Taiwan’s economy. Despite the end of the United States-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty in 1979, the United States continued to sell arms to Taiwan and remained interested in maintaining the people of Taiwan’s right to selfdetermination. Thus the unsettled relations between the two Chinas constituted the most important source of friction between the PRC and the United States. Further reading: Lee, Wei-chin, and T. Y. Yang, eds. Sayonara to the Lee Teng-hui Era, Politics in Taiwan, 1988–2000. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003; 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, 1991. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaïre) This country, located in central Africa, is bounded by the Republic of the Congo to the west; Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda on the east; Zambia and Angola on the south; and Sudan and the Central African Republic on the north. The capital city is Kinshasa, which changed its name from Leopoldville in 1964. The topography varies from tropical rain forests to mountainous terraces, plateau, savannas, dense grasslands, and mountains. Its region is dominated by the Congo River system, so it has a main role in economic development, transportation, and freshwater supply. This country has equatorial location; as a consequence the climate is hot and humid with large amounts of precipitation in the central river basin and eastern highlands, but it presents periodic droughts in the south. The majority of the population is Christian, predominantly Roman Catholic but Protestants also. There are other indigenous beliefs. Although French is the official language of the country, 700 local languages and dialects are spoken because DRC has over 200 ethnic groups, mainly of Bantu origin. The population was estimated at 58 million in 2004 and has grown quickly. The DRC has a vast potential of natural resources and mineral wealth such as cobalt, diamonds, gold, copper, coal, uranium, crude oil, and tin. Most of these are export commodities. The agricultural production basis of the DRC is diversified; the wooden resources 118 Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaïre) are quite large, and it holds an enormous hydroelectric potential. The programs and policies of structural adjustment set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have a ruling presence in the country. In the 1980s, the IMF played a leading role in the economic policies adopted by the DRC. In exchange, the country‘s external debt was reconsidered and the IMF awarded a considerable loan. In 1989 the DRC was forced to establish a new economic reform due to economic instability. On the whole, the adjustments have improved the macroeconomic conditions in some countries, but the population’s living standards have worsened. Relative peace in the country in 2002 let President Joseph Kabila, son of the first DRC president, begin implementing an economic plan, helped by the IMF and World Bank; exports increased, improving the situation. But a country with immense economic resources continues to be dependent on external donors. In 1959, as an answer to the increasing demands for complete independence by the main nationalistic parties, the DRC’s government announced the forthcoming elections with the aim of establishing an autonomous government. In 1960 the Belgian Congo proclaimed its independence and was renamed Republic of Congo. In 1966 the country became Democratic Republic of the Congo. The post-independence period was distinguished by instability. Ethnic disputes and military revolts had provoked violent disorders, all of which intensified when the prime minister of the mineral-rich province of Katanga proclaimed his independence from the country and asked Belgium for military help. A United Nations peacekeeping force was called to restore order. However, Col. Joseph Désiré Mobutu, chief of staff of the army, took over the government and declared himself president. In 1971 he renamed the country the Republic of Zaïre. During the cold war, Mobutu continued to enforce his one-party system of government, but at the end of this period the regime suffered from external and internal pressures, and he acceded to implement a multiparty system with elections and a constitution. In fact, Mobutu continued ruling until 1997. Between 1994 and 1996 Zaïre was involved in the Rwanda conflict, hosting large numbers of refugees in its border territory. This situation caused trouble when the presence of Hutu refugees, among them several responsible for the Rwanda genocide, provoked the Tutsis to revolt. This rebellion, supported by the United States, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and Angola, spread over the Zaïre territory, weakening Mobutu’s regime, which was supported by France. This first war in Congo ended when rebel leader Laurent-Désiré Kabila, declared himself president and changed the name of the nation back to Democratic Republic of the Congo. But relations between Kabila and his foreign backers deteriorated, and in 1998 Kabila’s government was subsequently challenged. Troops from Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Chad, and Sudan intervened to support him. The series of wars in this nation was determined not only by ethnic factors but also by natural resources. The control of diamonds and other important minerals has contributed to encourage both wars as well as the maintenance of the authoritarian governments. In 1999 a cease-fire was finally signed, but Kabila was assassinated in 2001. He was succeeded by his son Joseph, who signed a peace agreement with Rwanda the next year and established a transitional government. With the United Nations presence, a new constitution was formally adopted in 2006, and on July 30 the first free multiparty elections were held. In November 2006 Joseph Kabila won the presidency in the country’s first democratic elections since 1960. See also Mobutu Sese Seko. Further reading: Klare, Michael T. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York: Henry Holt, 2001; Manning, Patrick. Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa 1880– 1985. Cambridge University Press, 1988; Nzongola-Ntalja, George. From Zaïre to The Democratic Republic of Congo. Current African Issues No. 28. Second and revised edition. Nordiska: Afrikainstitutet. 2004. Verónica M. Ziliotto Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaïre) 119 A village scene depicts life in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country that has had a troubled, unstable history. Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-p’ing) (1904–1997) leader of the Chinese Communist Party Deng Xiaoping was born on August 22, 1904. As leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Deng was not officially the leader of China but acted as such during the late 1970s until his death. Deng’s legacy was the creation of a Chinese form of socialism with limited economic liberalization. Many Communist hard-liners, however, argued that Deng represented a threat and the potential of a return to capitalism. The divided opinion within the CCP with regard to Deng would be a pattern throughout his career. It was under Deng’s “second generation” of leadership that China became one of the fastest-growing world economies. Deng left China in 1920 to work and study in France. He quickly gravitated to many of his seniors on the trip—including Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai). Deng’s studies focused on the study of Marxism; in 1922 he joined the Communist Party of Chinese Youth in Europe. By 1924 Deng became a member of the Chinese Communist Party. He returned to China in 1929, led the failed uprising in the Guangxi (Kwangsi) province, then fled to Jiangxi (Kiangsi) province. Deng participated in the Long March (1934–35) and guerrilla campaigns against Japan in World War II as well as in the civil war against the Kuomintang. He became mayor and political commissar of the city of Chongqing (Chungking). Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) promoted him to several prominent posts. Mao’s 1957 Anti-Rightist Campaign offered Deng the opportunity to work closely with another Communist leader, Liu Shaoqi (Liu Shao-chi). As a result of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the economic disaster that followed, Deng and Shaoqi took over control of the CCP and government and implemented a number of less radical and pragmatic policies. The Cultural Revolution, begun by Mao in 1966, dealt a major blow to Deng’s career, and he was disgraced. By 1974, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was able to bring Deng back to power, taking over as first deputy premier in charge of running the day-to-day affairs. However, the radical Gang of Four, committed to the ideals of the Cultural Revolution, viewed Deng as a significant threat and were able to purge him once again from his positions. Deng’s next opportunity came with Mao’s death in 1976, and he quickly emerged as Mao’s successor. After 1978 Deng implemented policies that improved relations with the West, traveling to Washington in 1979 to meet President Jimmy Carter. Relations with Japan improved as well. In 1984 China signed an agreement with Great Britain for the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. China promised not to interfere with Hong Kong’s capitalist system for 50 years. Deng implemented the Four Modernizations Program in agriculture, industry, science and technology, and the military. The goal of the modernization program was to create a more modern Chinese economy. Under him China encouraged direct foreign investment and created special economic zones. The Tiananmen Square massacre is the most controversial of all Deng’s policy decisions. Mass student demonstrations in favor of democratic reforms were met with a violent military crackdown ordered by Deng and his senior associates that resulted in thousands of deaths in Beijing and dozens of other cities in China. It was followed by widespread repression, which stained his career. Further reading: Gittings, John. The Changing Face of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005; Marti, Michael. China and the Legacy of Deng Xiaoping: From Communist Revolution to Capitalist Evolution. Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2002; Yang, Benjamin. Deng: A Political Biography. New York: East Gate Books, 1997. Matthew H. Wahlert disarmament, nuclear During and after the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a series of talks and signed several treaties dealing with arms control and nuclear disarmament. Arms control entails the limitation of nuclear weapons or delivery systems, while nuclear disarmament indicates the actual reduction of nuclear weapons. Beginning with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987, the powers would begin the process of nuclear disarmament. After dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to end World War II, the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons. In June 1946, at the first meeting of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, the United States presented the Baruch Plan, offering to turn over its stockpile of atomic weapons to a United Nations international agency if all other countries would pledge not to produce them and agree to a system of inspection. At that time the Soviet Union was in the process of developing its own nuclear weapons and 120 Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-p’ing) rejected the plan, arguing that the United Nations was dominated by the United States and western Europe. The Soviet Union became a nuclear power in 1949 and by the mid-1950s had proposed a gradual reduction in conventional military forces, to be followed by an eventual destruction of nuclear stockpiles. In 1959 Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, in a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, called for total nuclear disarmament within four years. The United States refused to accept these recommendations without on-site inspections to verify disarmament agreements. The Soviet Union refused to allow nuclear inspectors on its territory, and there would little progress on the issue of disarmament between the two powers in the 1950s. After the United States and the Soviets came to the brink of war in the Cuban missile crisis, the focus of the two superpowers moved away from nuclear disarmament toward preventing the testing, deployment, and proliferation of these weapons. In August 1963 the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain—which had become a nuclear power in 1952—signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater. In July 1968 the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the terms of the treaty the nuclear powers pledged never to furnish nuclear weapons or nuclear technology to nonnuclear powers. The treaty also created a international inspection team under the United Nations International Atomic Energy Administration to verify compliance with the terms of the treaty. After his election in 1968, President Richard Nixon sought an easing of diplomatic tensions with the Soviet Union, a process known as détente. The Soviet Union also was looking to ease tensions with the West. Both sides came to the conclusion that the cold war was costing too much and sought to achieve their foreign policy goals through negotiations and peaceful coexistence rather than confrontation. In January 1969 the Soviet Union proposed negotiations for the limitation of nuclear delivery vehicles and defensive systems. President Nixon endorsed the talks, and in so doing altered U.S. policy away from nuclear superiority. This change in policy was the result of the Soviet arms buildup in the 1960s, which had led to strategic parity between the two superpowers. salt i Negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, known as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I), began in November 1969. These talks culminated in the signing of the SALT I Treaty in May 1972. This treaty placed limits on specific nuclear weapons. The SALT I Treaty was to be valid for five years, and the two sides began negotiations for a new agreement to take effect after the expiration of this treaty. The two sides agreed on a ceiling of 2,400 total delivery vehicles, with each side equipping no more than 1,320 missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). After 1974 talks slowed because of disagreements over which types of weapons should count under the 2,400 ceiling. The two sides failed to come to an agreement. From 1977 to 1979 the United States and the Soviets began new negotiations, known as the SALT II talks. These talks culminated in the SALT II Treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter and Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev on June 22, 1979. This treaty implemented the principle of equal aggregate limits, placing numerical limits on each side’s nuclear arsenal. The treaty allowed 2,400 total strategic vehicles (reduced to 2,250 in 1981) and limited MIRV ballistic and MIRV intercontinental ballistic missiles. With the principle of equal aggregate limits in place, both superpowers sought to end unrestricted competition for strategic superiority. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and U.S. domestic political opposition, influenced the U.S. Senate to refuse to ratify the treaty. Despite this fact, both sides agreed to adhere to the terms of the treaty as long as the other complied as well. By 1986, however, both sides were producing weapons programs that led the other to charge it with rejecting the provisions of the treaty. Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Treaty In 1981 President Ronald Reagan focused on alleged Soviet military superiority and began the largest peacetime buildup in U.S. history. Despite this arms buildup, Reagan agreed to abide by the limits in the SALT II Treaty. In 1982 Reagan called for the resumption of strategic arms reduction talks, later termed START. Shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet general secretary in March 1985, he announced a postponement of the planned deployment of intermediate- range missiles in Europe until November and expressed a willingness to reenter talks with the United States. By July he suspended all Soviet nuclear tests. In November Gorbachev and Reagan met at the Geneva Summit, breaking the period of deteriorating relations since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The leaders also announced the beginning of new talks. disarmament, nuclear 121 Gorbachev and Reagan met again at the Reykjavík Summit in October 1986. In these meetings the two sides came to some broad understandings on reductions in long-range nuclear weapons, the elimination of strategic missiles, removal of medium-range missiles from Europe, a reduction in weapons testing, and on-site verification. The summit was abruptly terminated when the Soviets insisted that the agreement was contingent on ending further research into the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Reagan refused this condition. Gorbachev and Reagan signed the Intermediaterange Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) at the Washington Summit in December 1987 after the Soviet Union separated its opposition to SDI from the larger question of nuclear missiles in Europe. In this agreement both sides promised to destroy all ground-launched intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles (approximately 2,300 missiles) and begin a system of on-site inspections. The INF Treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Soviet and went into effect after the Moscow Summit in May 1988. In July 1991 Reagan’s successor, President George H. W. Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Treaty (START). START restricted ballistic warheads and launchers, cut land-based ICBMS, and provided for on-site verification. This treaty reduced U.S. and Soviet strategic nuclear forces by about 30 percent. In September 1991 President Bush proposed that both sides dismantle all of their ground-launched tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs). Gorbachev agreed, and all such weapons were scheduled to be destroyed. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the four former Soviet republics possessing nuclear weapons—Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan—signed the Lisbon Protocol to START I, thereby agreeing to recognize Russia as the heir to the Soviet nuclear arsenal. The three non-Russian republics agreed to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty as nonnuclear states and transfer all their nuclear warheads to Russia within seven years. President Bush continued to campaign for further cuts in strategic nuclear weapons, proposing dramatic cuts in the number of warheads in existing groundand sea-launched weapons systems. Bush also unilaterally and effectively canceled the U.S. nuclear modernization program. Bush and Russian president Boris Yeltsin signed START II in January 1993, which provided for a 25 percent reduction in each country’s strategic forces to 3,000–3,500 warheads over 10 years. The two sides further agreed to the total elimination of MIRV intercontinental ballistic missiles. In a landmark symbolic gesture in 1994, Presidents Bill Clinton and Yeltsin announced that their longrange missiles would no longer be targeted at each other’s territory. In May 2002 Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, reducing the number of nuclear warheads to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 within 10 years. Although there remain some escape clauses and conditions, many view this agreement as the culmination of the arms control and disarmament process begun by Nixon and Brezhnev in the early 1970s. Further reading: Freedman, Lawrence. The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. 3d ed. Basingstoke, UK, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003; Garthoff, Raymond L. Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan. Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1994; Keylor, William R. The Twentieth-Century World and Beyond: An International History Since 1900. 5th ed. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006; Paterson, Thomas G., J. Garry Clifford, and Kenneth J. Hagan. American Foreign Relations: A History Since 1895. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Michael A. Ridge, Jr. drug wars, international The fight against drugs dates back as far as 1880, when the United States and China signed an agreement prohibiting opium’s being shipped from one country to the other. However, it was specifically under Richard Nixon’s administration in the early 1970s that the domestic war on drugs sparked renewed interest in international enforcement of curtailing the supply of illicit drugs. Actions were especially successful in Turkey, but not in Mexico—a center of the drug trade that would only strengthen over the years. Something other than interdiction efforts had to be done to upset the supply of drugs. This is when the kingpin strategy was adopted and began making the war on drugs much more international in scope, as U.S. DEA agents went after organizations, cartels, and drug lords who controlled major quantities of drugs on an international scope or gave military aid to governments that did so. 122 drug wars, international During and after Ronald Reagan’s term, attention turned again to the war on drugs. The Reagan administration pressured Colombian officials to cooperate in the international drug war by extraditing accused cocaine traffickers. Yet many officials who cooperated in such efforts were killed. A prime example of the risk of cooperation was seen in the Medellín cartel’s attack on November 6, 1985, on the Colombian Supreme Court, in which they killed over 200 people and destroyed extradition requests. The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances argued that continued illicit drug trafficking undermined legitimate economies, threatened stability, and mandated international cooperation in seizing drugrelated assets. Shortly thereafter, in 1989, the Joint Task Force 6 (JTF-6, also known as JTF-North) was formed. By 1995 this force would be 700 soldiers strong, with 125 specifically stationed, ready for combat, on the U.S.- Mexican border; they killed the first suspected drug trafficker, Esequiel Hernandez, there in 1997. In 1991 the Posse Comitatus Act amendments allowed the military to train civilian police in counter-drug practices. A decade later the U.S. Coast Guard was given machine guns and sniper rifles to assist in efforts to interdict drug traffickers. Shortly thereafter, efforts shifted beyond policing the U.S. borders for traffickers to sending assistance to policing efforts far from the borders. In July 2000 Congress earmarked $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia military aid—adding 60 combat helicopters, bringing the number of U.S. troops in Colombia to 500, and training the Colombian military to eradicate coca and fight the FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), the country’s largest rebel group. Efforts in the international war on drugs were not limited to Colombia. U.S. forces worked with the Peruvian air force as part of the Air Bridge Denial (ABD) program. The program was implemented to shoot down aircraft, such as that belonging to the infamous Pablo Escobar (leader of the Medellín cartel). ABD was stopped shortly after the April 2001 shooting down of a civilian aircraft carrying a U.S. missionary and a child. It resumed again in Colombia in August 2003 and had forced down 24 drug-trafficking aircraft by 2004, according to U.S. congressman Mark Souder (R-IN). While Mexico and Colombia have arguably been the center of attention in the international war on drugs, other frontline battles against heroin and opium production have occurred, including the countries of the historical and current leaders in the production of opium and its derivatives—morphine and heroin—in the Golden Triangle (Burma, Laos, and Thailand) and the Golden Crescent (Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan). In recent years, the White House Drug Control Policy Office has been working with China to prevent drug trafficking through China to the United States. Many continue to argue that international drug wars to reduce supply are less successful and much more bloody than drug wars focused on reducing demand. Some argue that reducing demand is the only way to stop supply in the $400 billion (estimated) global narcotics business. Further reading: MacCoun, Robert, Peter Reuter, and Charles Wolf, Jr. Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places (RAND Studies in Policy Analysis). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001; Rabasa, Angel, and Peter Chalk. Colombian Labyrinth: The Synergy of Drugs and Insurgency and Its Implications for Regional drug wars, international 123 United States coast guardsmen form a chain to offload 77 bales of cocaine from the CGC Tornado. Instability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001; Simmons, Geoff. Colombia: A Brutal History. London: SAQI Press, 2004. Ashley Thirkill-Mackelprang Dutch New Guinea/West Irian On the western side of Papua New Guinea (PNG) is situated West Irian, a province of Indonesia. A colony of the Netherlands after August 1828, it was known earlier as Dutch New Guinea or West New Guinea. In 1961 it was renamed Irian Barat (West Irian), and in 1973 it was renamed Irian Jaya. The whole of western New Guinea was named Papua in 2002. In February 2003 the western portion of Papua was separated and renamed West Irian Jaya. The Indonesia constitutional court in 2004 did not allow the division of Papua into three regions, but accepted the creation of the West Irian Jaya province, carved from Papua’s western region. The Netherlands controlled Dutch New Guinea even after the Hague Agreement of December 1949, which transferred sovereignty to the Indonesian federal government. The Indonesian leader Ahmed Sukarno (1901–70) did not want any remnant of Dutch colonialism. The Indonesian army occupied New Guinea in 1961. An agreement was signed on August 15, 1962, by which power was transferred to the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) for six years from 1963. Indonesia had administrative power over the territory from May 1, 1963. West Irian was incorporated with Indonesia as its 27th province in November 1969. This Act of Free Choice was not accepted by various groups and raised controversy. In the U.S. Congress a bill was brought in 2006 that questioned the validity of the Act of Free Choice. The independence leaders also had not accepted the merger of West Irian with Indonesia in the act. Opposition to Indonesian rule and the desire for independence as a free nation were held by a sizable portion of the population. In December 1963 the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, or Free Papua Movement) was established. It launched a guerrilla campaign against the Indonesian government in 1970 and set up an independent government the next year. Its military wing, known as the Liberation Army of OPM, indulged in terrorist activities. Kelly Kwalik, the commander, was responsible for the kidnapping of Indonesians and foreigners. He had also targeted the multinationals operating in the region. Moses Werror was the chairperson of the Revolutionary Council of OPM, based in Madang, Papua New Guinea. The Satgas Papua is another proindependence organization. Theys Hijo Eluay’s (1937– 2001) Lembaga Musyawarah Adat Papua (Papuan Customary Council Assembly) believed in nonviolent methods. Eluay was murdered in 2001. The Indonesian armed forces along with its paramilitary group, Barisan Merah Putih, was active in suppressing the secessionist movement. The clashes between the army and the rebels continued from 2003 to 2004. The Papua governor, J. P. Salossa, wanted serious implementation of autonomy status. The Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had invited Governor Salossa and Papua provincial council speaker Jhon Ibo to Jakarta on August 10, 2006, for talks. Further reading: Bertrand, Jacques. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Emek, Patrick. Indonesia’s State of Terror: West Papua. London: Mandala, 2003; Moore, Clive. New Guinea: Crossing Boundaries and History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003; Rutherford, Danilyn. Raiding the Land of the Foreigners: The Limits of the Nation on an Indonesian Frontier. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. Patit Paban Mishra Duvalier dictatorship (Haiti, 1957–1986) One of the Western Hemisphere’s most repressive and brutal dictatorships, the successive regimes of François “Papa Doc” Duvalier (1907–71) and his son Jean- Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier (1951– ), ruled Haiti with an iron fist from 1957 to 1986, when Baby Doc was overthrown following widespread civil strife and massive street protests. With the support of the nation’s security forces, its leading elite families, and a substantial proportion of its urban and rural poor, the elder Duvalier was elected president in 1957. A physician educated at the Haitian National University Medical School, and a reputed practitioner of voodoo (Vodun), Papa Doc created a cult of personality around his person, which he projected as the embodiment of the Haitian nation. After violently suppressing all organized opposition to his rule, in 1964 he proclaimed himself “president for 124 Dutch New Guinea/West Irian life,” as he remained until his death in 1971, when his son assumed his political mantle. Violent political oppression and grinding economic poverty for the country’s majority characterized the nearly three decades of Duvalier rule. Running the country as their personal fiefdom, the Duvaliers terrorized their political and personal foes through their infamous secret police, the Tontons Macoutes (“Bogeymen”), a state security apparatus responsible for mass imprisonment. The roots of the Duvalier dictatorship stretch deep into Haitian history, from its independence in 1804, through a succession of dictatorial regimes, to the U.S. military intervention of 1915–34, which laid the groundwork for the modern Haitian state. This included its armed forces, the gendarmerie—later the Garde d’Haïti, or Garde—which centralized the state’s violence-making capacities within a single institution, based in Port-au- Prince. It was from within the structures of this U.S.- created security apparatus that the two Duvaliers based their power after 1957. Under Duvalier rule (Duvalierism), Haiti became a pariah state internationally, with the United States suspending diplomatic relations in May 1963, even as many U.S. and other foreign firms continued to do business in the country. From the 1960s to 1980s, Haiti emerged as a key assembly point for many U.S. manufacturers. In 1966, 13 U.S. corporations owned assembly plants in Haiti; in 1981 the number had risen to 154. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Haitians remained mired in poverty. In 1986, the year of Baby Doc’s ouster, the poorest 60 percent of the country’s population earned an annual per capita income of $60, according to the World Bank. Malnutrition, infant mortality, and other social indices marked Haiti as the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country. At the top of the social hierarchy a handful of economically and politically powerful families—most prominently the Brandt, Mevs, Accra, Bigio, and Behrmann families—controlled many of the island’s key industries, including sugar, textiles, construction materials, cooking oil, and others. This combination of extreme poverty and severe political oppression largely explain the meteoric rise to power of the anti-Duvalier radical populist preacher Jean-Bertrand Aristide following Baby Doc’s overthrow in 1986. Further reading: Laguerre, Michel S. The Military and Society in Haiti. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993; Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Haiti: State Against Nation: Origins and Legacy of Duvalierism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1990. Michael J. Schroeder

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki