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
Fa Xian (Fa-hsien) (c. fi fth century C.E.) Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, author Fa Xian was a famous Chinese Buddhist pilgrim who traveled overland to India in 399 C.E. and returned via sea in 413. All Chinese men and women abandon their original names and choose ones with religious signifi - cance when they join monastic orders. Fa Xian means “Illustriousness of the Law.” His travels and journal provide important geographic information about the lands he visited, knowledge about conditions in India (which are lacking in Indian records), and vital Buddhist manuscripts that he translated into Chinese after he returned home. Buddhism fi rst arrived in China at the beginning of the Common Era from India and Central Asia by land along the Silk Road and by sea along the coast of Southeast Asia through Vietnam. Until Fa Xian’s epochal journey the traffi c was one way, and the bringers of the Buddhist message were all non-Chinese (Indians, Persians, and Central Asians). Some early Chinese pilgrims who attempted the journey either never reached India or never returned. The success of his journey inaugurated a movement that took many Chinese monks to Buddhism’s holy land. Up to his journey there had been no translation into Chinese of the entire vinaya, or “rules of the discipline,” of the Buddhist canon. Fa Xian’s goal was to obtain an entire version of the work to translate into Chinese. He traveled by land across the terrifying Gobi Desert, which he described in these words: “In the desert were numerous evil spirits and scorching winds, causing death to anyone who would meet them. Above there were no birds, while on the ground there were no animals. One looked as far as one could in all directions for a path to cross, but there was none to choose. Only the dried bones of the dead served as indications.” After arriving at the oasis town Khotan in presentday northwestern China he crossed high mountains to northwestern India. Then he visited all the holy places of Buddhism, studied Sanskrit, collected manuscripts (including several versions of the vinaya according to different Buddhist sects), crossed to Ceylon (Sri Lanka), where he studied for two years, then boarded a ship for China at Java. After more than 200 days at sea he arrived in Shandong (Shantung) in northern China. He spent his remaining years translating the entire vinaya and other Buddhist works into Chinese and writing a book titled Record of Buddhist Kingdoms. Many devout Buddhist monks would follow his path in the succeeding centuries, learning about Buddhism in its native land and returning to China to spread their knowledge and spiritual faith. See also Buddhism in China; Era of Division (China); Gupta Empire. Further reading: Beal, Samuel. Travels of Fa-hian and Sung-yun, Buddhist Pilgrims, from China to India. London: Trubner, 1869; Dutt, Romesh Chander. A History of Civilization in Ancient India Based on Sanskrit Literature, F 145 Rev. ed., Vol. 2, B.C. 320–A.D. 1000. New Delhi, India: Cosmo Publishers, 2000; Giles, H. A. The Travels of Fahsien (399–414 A.D.), or Records of the Buddhist Kingdoms. Reprint, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Fertile Crescent The Fertile Crescent describes an area of land roughly occupied by modern Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. North of the Arabian Desert and west of the Zagros Mountains, this area is irrigated by several rivers, most notably the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq and Syria, and the Nile in Egypt. The two major river basins are connected by the Levant, a stretch of fertile land along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, to form a green crescent-like shape. Once among the most fertile agricultural lands on Earth, the crescent remains visible from space today. Normally, the ebb and fl ow of plant and animal populations encouraged people to move around, following them. The Nile, however, experienced fairly predictable annual fl oods, and the Tigris and Euphrates regularly overfl owed and irrigated the surrounding land, now called Mesopotamia. Aided by the fi rst domesticated animals, people found that they could settle in fi xed communities, eating the harvested produce of one year’s fl oods while waiting for the next year’s crop to grow. They helped this process along with irrigation ditches, encouraging the production of wheat and barley, which they supplemented with fi gs and dates. Cows, meanwhile, demanded an increasing quantity of domesticated grass, in order to provide enough meat and milk for a rapidly growing human population. THE FIRST CITIES By around 7000 to 5000 b.c.e. the settled human population had grown large enough to support the fi rst permanent settlements. In ancient Egypt the Nile was revered as part of the primeval sea, which gave way to a primeval hill, on which humankind built some of the fi rst cities, such as Memphis (c. 3500 b.c.e.). Mesopotamian origin myths went one step further, treating Eridu (settled around 5400 b.c.e.) as the world’s fi rst city. In fact, the oldest continually-inhabited cities are not along the major river valleys at all, but in the Levant, where Damascus, Syria, and Jericho, Israel, boast histories of as much as 9,000 years. Initially small, these cities grew in both population and number until the Fertile Crescent was dotted with hundreds or even thousands, containing a few million people between them. A diverse array of crops and other agricultural goods promoted communication and trade among these cities and thus the fi rst economies, but population pressures, both within the cities and among neighboring nomads, led to an increased demand for territory and security and thus to the earliest forms of organized warfare. Both trends lent themselves to increasingly complex hierarchies and political organizations among the various city-states so that by the third millennium b.c.e. cities began to band together under a common leadership, creating the fi rst empires. EGYPT Though Egypt probably emerged late as a civilization of city builders, it was among the fi rst to emerge as a unifi ed state. As early as the fi rst documented pharaoh, Narmer, Egypt emerged as a federated imperial state, with several communities working together toward common secular and spiritual goals. The most remarkable accomplishment of the earliest Egyptians was the great Pyramids of Giza, constructed around 2500 b.c.e. under the pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty. Ten centuries and 14 dynasties later, Egypt expanded into the Levant, using chariots and archers to reach as far as the city of Mari, on the western Euphrates. Throughout its history up to about 1000 b.c.e. Egypt remained remarkably unifi ed. Despite the occasional foreign invasion Egypt maintained a cultural unity rarely fragmented beyond more than two kingdoms, and these were usually based on the two largest cities, Memphis and Thebes. During brief periods of more general civil strife, smaller city-states emerged, including Saïs and Tanis, but these were often subsumed again into the larger kingdom once political control was reestablished. Occasionally, however, even the capital of unifi ed Egypt would change, for example when the pharaoh Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti established a new power base at Heliopolis, refl ecting a change in Egyptian religion from reverence of the Nile to worship of the Sun. MESOPOTAMIA AND THE LEVANT In contrast to Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Levant experienced considerable fragmentation and change. Subject to continual invasions and balance-of-power struggles, these city-states tended to be more militarized and for more than a millennium much less ad- 146 Fertile Crescent ept than their Egyptian counterpart at building secure, stable empires. Over time, however, they mastered the art, and the Assyrians briefl y unifi ed the entire Fertile Crescent under a single sovereign entity, in the middle of the seventh century b.c.e. Initially, Mesopotamia was broken into tiny citystates, with each town and its surrounding land claiming all the prerogatives of a sovereign state. Collectively called Sumer, the city-states near the Tigris and Euphrates delta developed a distinctive culture, featuring literature such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Although Gilgamesh’s town of Uruk clearly infl uenced others, neither it nor any of the other city-states of Sumer established a clear military or political dominance over the others. The fi rst major military power in Mesopotamia was not native to the region at all but an invader: the Gutians, who had domesticated the horse and invaded over the Zagros Mountains. Although repulsed by the Sumerians, militia in the individual towns—such as the 24-man garrison of Lagash—could not overcome the next invasion, from northern Arabia. Sargon of Akkad unifi ed southern Mesopotamia c. 2350 b.c.e. not only by force with his 6,000-man army but also by adopting the local culture. This empire only lasted until 2100 b.c.e., however, before native Sumerian rule was restored by the third dynasty of Ur. The fi rst leader of this new empire, Ur-Nammu, organized neighboring city-states into administrative districts and imposed one of the world’s fi rst codes of laws across the whole federation. His son, Shulgi, conquered a few neighboring city-states and was revered as a god, though his empire was soon dwarfed. The problem with Sumer-Akkad was that local food supplies were unable to cope with a growing population— still less so in periods of drought and when the cult of personality failed Shulgi’s successors. All three factors came into play when the Amorites, another North Arabian tribe, came into the fertile valley of the Euphrates River around 2000 b.c.e. and established themselves at Babylon, blocking the major trade route. Slowly they absorbed almost all of the territory and culture of their more numerous subjects, but some Sumer-Akkadians may have moved altogether to a different collection of city-states on the northern Tigris, in the old kingdom of Assyria. ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA Though it went through many evolutions, these migrations ultimately set the stage for the major Mesopotamian rivalry of the next 1,500 years, between Assyria and Babylonia—both of them centers of trade, culture, and learning, which became increasingly militaristic and antagonistic over time. At fi rst, early Babylon was the more impressive, with leaders such as Hammurabi writing their own codes of laws and increasingly advanced institutions of politics, culture, and religion. Assyria, meanwhile, grew rich as a trading empire but fell subject to invasion by the Mittani, a mysterious people who may have introduced iron working to the region. When Assyria reemerged around 1350 b.c.e., it was no longer a trading empire but a state governed by a continual call to war. For some 700 years Assyria steadily expanded, dominating its neighbors and unifying large areas of the Fertile Crescent, until by 671 b.c.e. the entire region was subject to the rule of a single leader, Esarhaddon, governing from the city of Nineveh on the middle Tigris. Deeply religious and eminently pragmatic, many Assyrian leaders combined respect for their neighbors with a calculated ruthlessness. Although they allowed many conquered peoples to retain their political institutions, Assyrian bas-reliefs suggest that their leaders favored a policy of large-scale devastation and deportation for recalcitrant populations, and later dynasties built centers of culture at home from the spoils of rival neighbors. Despite suffering from one or two major expeditions, Assyrian hegemony worked relatively well for Phoenicia, a collection of semifederated maritime trading states in the northern Levant that provided tribute from islands in the Mediterranean. The Israelite lands were less compliant, however, and required a judicious mix of deportations, depredations, and diplomacy The Fertile Crescent is an area of land irrigated by several rivers, most notably the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the Nile (above). Fertile Crescent 147 to remain a subject people. Babylon proved more recalcitrant by the early seventh century b.c.e., revolting three times in 15 years, before Great King Sennacherib completely destroyed it in 689 b.c.e. Though Esarhaddon ordered the city rebuilt and repopulated, Assyria never fully controlled its neighbor to the south, and late Babylon retrieved the upper hand at long last near the end of the seventh century b.c.e., establishing a smaller Mesopotamian empire that endured for about 70 years, before the Fertile Crescent was unifi ed again under the rule of Cyrus II of Persia. See also Aramaeans; Babylon, early period; Babylon, later periods; Hyksos; Medes, Persians, and Elamites. Further reading: Casson, Lionel. The Ancient Mariners. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991; Pollock, Susan, and Rita P. Wright. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Shaw, Ian. The Oxford Illustrated History of Ancient Egypt Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Matt J. Schumann First Americans There is considerable controversy and little consensus on the questions of when, where, and how human beings fi rst arrived in and peopled the Americas. For much of the 20th century (c. 1920s–80s) the views of Aleš Hrdlicka (1869–1943) of the United States National Museum dominated the discipline of physical anthropology in the Americas. Hrdlicka and his followers maintained that all indigenous peoples of the Americas originated in north Asia from Mongoloid stock. His theory dovetailed with the so-called Clovis-First hypothesis, a pre-1990s consensus among North American archaeologists and physical anthropologists that the ancestors of all peoples who inhabited the Americas prior to the European encounter in 1492 had migrated across a land bridge at the Bering Strait (called Beringia) and south through an ice-free corridor near the end of the most recent (or Wisconsin) glaciation, around 10,000 b.c.e. These early Paleo-Indians then dispersed across the Americas. Their immediate descendants, the Clovis culture, employed a characteristic lithic chipping technique (fi rst discovered near Clovis, New Mexico, in the 1930s), which then became widespread across North America. In this Clovis-First hypothesis, the Clovis culture was followed by the Folsom culture and subsequent late Paleo-Indian cultures. Numerous pre-Clovis sites excavated from the 1990s conclusively demonstrate human habitation of the Americas well before the Clovis horizon. New subdisciplines (including paleobotany, paleoparasitology, paleoclimatology, paleoecology, and mitochondrial DNA [mtDNA] analysis) and new dating technologies (especially more refi ned radiocarbon dating procedures and optically stimulated luminescence [OSL]) have pushed back the date of human habitation in the Americas to at least 16,000 BP (before present). Paralleling the torturous history of paleoanthropology in Africa and Asia, however, credible schools of thought regarding the peopling of the Americas are varied, multiple, contradictory, and a matter of fi erce debate. In North America, and despite these disagreements, one consensus to emerge by the early 2000s was that the U.S. South and the Mid-Atlantic region south of the Wisconsin glaciation were major sites of human habitation in the pre-Clovis era. Numerous sites there predating the Clovis culture have been carefully excavated since the 1980s. These include the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in southwestern Pennsylvania, a project directed by James M. Adovasio of the Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, which has yielded fi rm dates of 16,000 BP; Cactus Hill, Virginia, led (in separate projects) by Joseph McAvoy of the Nottaway River Survey and Michael Johnson of the Archaeological Society of Virginia, whose human artifacts were also dated to around 16,000 BP; Saltville, Virginia, dated to 14,000 BP; and the Topper site in South Carolina, dated to at least 16,000 BP. Another important project from the 1990s has been the Gault site excavation in central Texas, supervised by Mike Collins under the auspices of the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, which has unearthed more than half a million Clovis artifacts and shed new light on this mysterious culture. In South America sites antecedent to Clovis include the Monte Verde project in Chile, undertaken by U.S. archaeologist T. D. Dillehay in the 1980s and 1990s; the Taima Taima project in Venezuela, led by Canadian archaeologists Alan Bryan and Ruth Gruhn from the 1970s; and the Pedra Furada project in northeastern Brazil, directed by Brazilian anthropologist Niède Guidon of the Fundação Museu do Homem Americano (FUMDHAM) since the 1980s. Dillehay’s fi ndings at Monte Verde demonstrate that humans inhabited the southernmost parts of South America at least 12,500 years ago and suggest dates as far back as 33,000 BP. The fi ndings of Guidon and colleagues at Pedra Furada appear to push the date of hu- 148 First Americans man habitation of the Americas back even further. Radiocarbon dating of hearth samples and other artifacts (using accelerator mass spectrometry [AMS] and a procedure called acid-base-wet oxidation followed by stepped combustion [ABOX-SC], developed in 1999) has yielded dates ranging from 35,000 to 55,000 b.c.e. for the Pedra Furada site. Some purported anthropogenic specimens have yielded ages greater than 56,000 BP, the outermost limit of radiocarbon dating. Guidon and her colleagues therefore hypothesize that humans inhabited Pedra Furada and adjacent sites some 60,000 years ago, and perhaps before. Few scholars accept these very early dates. Other evidence suggests South Asian, African, and possibly European migrations to the Americas in the pre-Clovis era. Among the most controversial fi ndings is the so-called Kennewick Man, plucked out of the Columbia River in Washington State and dated to around 9,300 BP, to which some attributed “Caucasoid- like,” or non–Native American Indian, anatomical features, sparking a huge debate and much litigation. Less disputed is the skeleton dubbed “Luzia” in Brazil, which dates to around 10,000 b.c.e. and is considered to exhibit either African or South Asian morphological features. Other reputable studies provide evidence of close anatomical affi nities between contemporary and pre-Columbian Amerindians in the Baja California Peninsula and South Asian/South Pacifi c populations. MtDNA analysis likewise elicits complex depictions of the genetic heritage of various pre-Columbian indigenous peoples of the Americas, suggesting not only North Asian but also South Asian, African, and European genetic links. Other anomalies not explained by the Clovis-First hypothesis are the greater antiquity and relative abundance of pre-Columbian remains and artifacts in zones furthest from the Beringia land bridge and the more recent provenance and relative dearth of such remains in the zones nearest to it. Linguistic analyses, too, suggest that people arrived in the Americas in several distinct migrations, not all from North Asia, the earliest dating to at least 15,000 b.c.e. One plausible theory, that people arrived in waves of migrations over many millennia, beginning with watercraft migrations from Asia to the Pacifi c coasts of North and South America sometime between 30,000 and 20,000 BP, cannot be confi rmed except through undersea archaeological digs First Americans 149 Refl ecting what First Americans might have looked like in the American Southwest, a group of 10 Hopi snake priests pose before a camera in 1907. Where, how, when, and why the fi rst Native Americans settled the American continents is hotly debated today. (which do not exist in this fi eld) or chance discovery, since the then-littoral was inundated by rising seas at the beginning of the Holocene (10,000 BP). The most signifi cant obstacles to further advances in this fi eld include academic infi ghting among the proponents of various schools of thought, and linguistic and cultural barriers between North and South American scholars. Some also view the 1990 U.S. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) as a signifi cant impediment to scientifi c research in North America, since it requires all pre-Columbian human remains and artifacts be repatriated to the closest culturally affi liated American Indian tribe recognized by the U.S. government, thereby precluding scientifi c testing, as occurred in the case of Kennewick Man. Others point to the long history of routine mistreatment of unearthed human remains by physical anthropologists and archaeologists and to the spiritual well-being of contemporary Indian communities as necessitating NAGPRA. Among the most reputable English-language scholarly journals in this rapidly expanding and contentious fi eld are American Antiquity, Nature, Science, Athena Review, and North American Archaeologist. Further reading: Adovasio, James M., with Jake Page. The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology’s Greatest Mystery. New York: Random House, 2002; Dewar, Elaine. Bones: Discovering the First Americans. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2001; Dillehay, Thomas D. The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory. New York: Basic Books, 2000; González- José, Rolando, et al. “Craniometric Evidence for Paleoamerican Survival in Baja California.” Nature 42, no. 5 (September 4, 2003); FUMDHAM Project. Available online. URL: http:// www.fumdham.com.br (June 2007); Mann, Charles. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York: Knopf, 2005. M. J. Schroeder Flavian emperors The death of the Roman emperor Nero in 68 c.e. was followed by a period in which different Roman armies backed different claimants for the imperial throne. The winner, Vespasian (r. 69–79 c.e.), founded the shortlived Flavian dynasty of himself and his two sons, Titus and Domitian. Titus Flavius Vespasianus was born to provincial aristocrats and decided early in life on a senatorial career. His wife and the mother of his two sons, Flavia Domitilla, died before he became emperor. He survived the dangerous administrations of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, earning a reputation as both a competent administrator and an imperial sycophant. He served successfully as a military commander in Claudius’s invasion of Britain. Vespasian’s peak of responsibility came in 66, when Nero named him as commander of the armies sent to put down the Jewish revolts. He quickly crushed the rebellion in most of the country and besieged the rebel stronghold at Jerusalem. It was there that the news of Nero’s suicide in 68 and the ensuing struggle for the imperial throne reached him. Vespasian continued the siege of Jerusalem until the summer of 69, when in collaboration with the governors of Syria and Egypt he declared the empire for himself. Vespasian provided stable if tight-fi sted government after the turmoil of Nero’s reign and the disruptions of the civil wars. He left his eldest son Titus behind to continue the Jewish war, which ended with the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in the spring of 70. In Rome, Vespasian rebuilt the Capitol, destroyed by fi re in 69, and built the Colosseum. Despite his building projects Vespasian retained enough control over the imperial taxes and treasury to leave a surplus for his successor. He refi lled the depleted ranks of the Senate and granted civic rights to many communities outside Italy, particularly in Spain. Like several emperors who fought their way to the throne rather than inheriting it, Vespasian retained a sense of humor about the offi ce. The imperial biographer Suetonius recounted his deathbed witticism on the practice of deifying dead emperors who had become famous: “Dear me, I think I am becoming a god.” The prophecy proved correct as the Senate deifi ed him at the instigation of his son and successor, Titus. Before Vespasian’s death, Titus had a reputation as his father’s enforcer, tough and not overly scrupulous. As emperor, Vespasian loaded Titus with offi ces, including the important one of praetorian prefect, in an attempt to establish him as a clear successor. This strategy proved successful, and Titus peacefully ascended the throne after Vespasian’s death. As emperor, he was popular both in his own time and later. He appealed to the ordinary people of Rome by continuing Vespasian’s building programs and providing lavish games and shows. The most prominent architectural work associated with his reign was the Arch of Titus, commemorating his victory over the Jews. He also sent money to aid communities damaged by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79. Like his father, he left a surplus in the treasury. 150 Flavian emperors Titus left no legitimate son and was succeeded by his younger brother, Domitian. Intelligent and hard working like his father and brother, Domitian was also harsh and tyrannical. He spent the reign of Vespasian in his brother’s shadow, although he did enjoy the title of caesar. He succeeded with little diffi culty after Titus’s death. Some ancient sources charge him with poisoning Titus, but there is no direct evidence. Like Titus, he had his predecessor deifi ed. As emperor, Domitian was one of the greatest of all builders of Rome, building a great palace on the Palatine Hill and rebuilding the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline, as well as dozens of other structures. He was a cultural conservative who identifi ed himself with Roman traditions and Roman religion. In 85 he awarded himself the unprecedented title of perpetual censor, traditionally the offi ce associated with the guardianship of Roman morality. Like all the Flavians, he was a severe taxer and careful spender, who left a surplus in the treasury. Domitian’s biggest political problem was his bad relationship with the Senate, an institution for which he felt and displayed no great respect. This relationship deteriorated throughout his reign. The portrait of Domitian as a “bad emperor” is traceable to senatorial sources, particularly the historians Suetonius and Tacitus, although there was no attempt to portray him as a madman like Gaius or Nero. Domitian preferred to rule through a court group including relatives, freedmen, and a few senators, rather than dealing with the Senate as a whole; many senators were exiled or executed during his reign. His death came by an assassination plot, and the Senate, in contrast to his deifi ed father and brother, condemned his memory. Marcus Cocceius Nerva, who made a point of breaking with the previous reign, succeeded Domitian. See also Roman historians; Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: government. Further reading: De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors. Available online. URL: http://www.roman-emperors.org (September 2005); Garzetti, Albino. From Tiberius to the Antonines: A History of the Roman Empire, AD 14–192. Trans. by J. R. Foster. London: Methuen, 1974; Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian. New York: Routledge, 1992; ———. The Emperor Titus. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984; McCrum, Michael, and A. G. Woodhead, eds. Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors, Including the Year of Revolution, A.D. 68–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961. William Burns food gatherers and producers, prehistory The distinctions among food gatherers and producers are traditionally used to reveal differences in subsistence strategies among prehistoric societies with different types of culture and livelihoods. Each kind of food gathering and production (and its variants) has a social, economic, cultural, ritual, and ecological implication. HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT Since Dicaearchus it was recognized that humankind had passed four stages of natural resource exploitation: primitive hunting, fi shery, and gathering; nomadic cattle breeding; agriculture; and specialized agriculture. It was clearly expressed by Soviet researchers M. Levin and N. Cheboksarov in 1955 and is grounded on the assumption that the population inhabited a certain environment and attributed to a certain stage of social and economic development that should inevitably elaborate on, rather than form, a strictly defi nite, constant model of behavior. Major phylums are hunters, gatherers, and fi shermen; simple farmers; and plow farmers. Each of them could be subdivided into chronological stages (phases) and territorial groups. METHODS FOR RECONSTRUCTION The most important information about food gathering and/or production of a prehistoric population is obtained during the interdisciplinary excavations of archaeological sites when methods and data of paleontology, zoo-archaeology, palinology and paleo-ethnobotany are engaged. Analysis of fossil micro- and macrofaunal assemblages allows scientists to defi ne animal species structure, to reconstruct herd age and sex structure and seasonality, and to fi nd morphological traces of domestication on their bones. Studies of macro- and microbotanical remains, analysis of spore and pollen species in samples taken from cultural layers, chemical analysis of plant residues in soil and on artifacts, plant impressions on pottery and soil, and other methods are used to defi ne plants used by prehistoric populations. Analysis of spatial organization of prehistoric sites, such as the interpretation of excavated objects (pits, wells, and storage places), provides information about the presence and importance of different human activities (tool and food production, storage, distribution, processing, and consumption). Food gathering (or foraging) is the earliest subsistence strategy inherent to humankind. The origin of regular food gathering in the forms of hunting; plants, food gatherers and producers, prehistory 151 seeds, and mollusks gathering; and primitive fi shing with utilization of specially designed tool kits traditionally is referred to with the origin of the fi rst representatives of the genus Homo (Homo habilis species) more than 2 million years ago. Hunting is usually regarded as the basic subsistence strategy practiced in prehistoric times. Since the origin of contemporary humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) several types of hunting are distinguished: • Group mobile hunting: oriented mainly on big-sized and mobile, gregarious game (mammoth, bison), dominated in Europe during the Late Paleolithic; surrounding, driving out, and shooting animals are the most widespread means of such hunting. • Fixed group hunting: applied for catching regularly migrating herds (such as reindeer) at suitable places (mainly river crossings), which are repeatedly used. • Silent hunting with the help of traps, nets, and hunting holes—controlled by the group sporadically. • Individual hunting for small-sized nongregarious game with the help of distant weapons (bow and arrows), which enable aiming, its peak during the Mesolithic (Early Holocene) time marked with disappearance of the traditional Paleolithic hunting game of the European population. The gathering of edible plants, roots, berries, mushrooms, and seeds (often called phytogathering) rarely becomes a subject of special study as far as it is regarded as an auxiliary component of the human diet obtained sporadically and often processed without special implement. Traditionally, phytogathering is regarded as important component of women’s household activity that secured their status in the food exchange network and guaranteed the realization of their gender function. The peculiar practice of mollusks and cereals gathering typical for Early Holocene (Mesolithic) societies of coastal regions and in densely populated regions with fertile soils usually functioned as an important source of basic nutrition of human groups faced with a shortage of traditional hunting game. Special objects and tools involved in this practice usually occur at relatively longterm sites. Fish catching, as hunting, was a secure source of protein food. The origin of soil cultivation, crop harvesting, and livestock raising is regarded as the main criteria of transition to the next stage of human society and culture development, generating from hunter- gatherer communities and directly preceding the formation of state and private property. V. G. Childe proposed one of the earliest explanations of food production origin in his idea of Neolithic revolution. According to him, drought and supply shortage stimulated food production in the oasis. Most researchers tend to interpret the origin of agriculture as an inevitable response to the crisis of the traditional hunter-gatherer economy and necessity to secure a subsistence system in a new ecological situation. The earliest evidence of plant domestication is traced to the Natufi an settlements of Palestine and Shanidar and Ali Kosh in Iran and Iraq and is dated about 9000–7000 b.c.e. Food production activity in prehistoric times developed in connection with human needs in nutrition (food demand) correlated with features of their natural habitat (relief, climate, faunal and fl oral resources). Two basic forms of food production in prehistory are traced archaeologically: land cultivation and cattle breeding. Land cultivation originates from simple seeds gathering at the end of the Mesolithic and as early as beginning of the Neolithic. The introduction of metal processing and utilization of early metal tools in the process of land cultivation brought an increase in productivity, which contributed to the general growth of sedentism in human societies at the beginning of the Bronze Age. It was accompanied with the origin of plow agriculture, the introduction of the two- and three-fi eld rotation system, draft animals exploitation, and natural soil fertilizer application. The fi rst phase of cattle breeding is connected with the crisis of hunting activity traced to the second half of the Mesolithic. Captured during successful hunting, animals (mainly juveniles) were preserved and fed for a while as a specifi c form of “live meat stocks,” which could be consumed at hungry times. Horse domestication marks the origin of a principally new form of animal treatment—nomadic cattle breeding. Shepherds used a wide spectrum of meat and dairy products, fresh milk excluded (traditionally its introduction is associated with sedentary agriculturist food production). The analysis of Bronze Age pottery indicates that early nomads used to make sour milk products, cottage cheese, and creams suitable for durable storage. See also religious inclinations, prehistory. Further reading: Higgs, E. S., ed. Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972; Mathewson, Kurt. “Cultural Landscape and Ecology III: Foraging/Farming, Food, Festivities.” Progress in Human Geography 24, no. 3 (2000); Rindos, D., ed. Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984. Olena V. Smyntyna
The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit
fairs of Champagne As the European economy grew during the 11th and 12th centuries overland trade between Italy and northwest Europe increased and merchants from these regions needed to meet to exchange their goods. During the period from the early 12th through the 13th century, this exchange was centered mostly in the Champagne region of France, at fairs held in the towns of Troyes, Provins, Bar-sur-Aube, and Lagny. A great deal of Flemish cloth made its way to Italy during the 12th century via the fairs of Champagne. Fairs are usually linked with markets and medieval charters granting permission for fairs and markets to meet often link the two. However unlike a market, which usually met weekly to serve local needs and to exchange cheap or perishable items, a fair assembled only once or twice a year for days or weeks to exchange commodities from distant places between merchants from remote areas. Fairs provided a place for merchants to meet with other merchants to do business in an economy that did not have, and could not sustain, permanent trading centers. The fair gave regularity to a merchant’s wanderings and offered a place where he knew he could fi nd other merchants, trade for the commodities and supplies he needed, and sell commodities he was carrying. The fairs of Champagne are perhaps the most famous of the medieval European fairs. They originated during the fi rst half of the 12th century as a center for the sale of horses. They developed from local markets to regional markets and fi nally to fairs of Europe-wide importance. Before fairs merchants traveled on trade routes between north and south that followed the Meuse, Saône, and Rhône Rivers. However, a more direct route between the Rhône Valley and West Flanders later emerged. It ran from the Saône across the upland of Langres to the headwaters of the Paris Rivers, and then north toward Lille and Arras. The four fair towns were on or close to this more direct route. Furthermore the counts of Champagne had unifi ed this area by the early 12th century and could ensure safety and welfare of merchants and travelers who went to their lands. The guarantee of safety and the “liberal and constructive” policies of the counts toward the fairs were attractive to merchants and no doubt contributed greatly to their success. The cycle included six fairs. Troyes and Provins hosted two fairs each, while Lagny and Bar-sur-Aube each hosted one fair. Lagny, near Paris, opened the New Year with its fair, and Bar-sur-Aube held its fair in spring at mid-Lent. The fi rst Provins fair met in the week of the feast of Ascension and was followed by the fi rst Troyes fair, which opened after the feast of St. John the Baptist. The second Provins fair opened September 14 and the cycle ended with the second Troyes fair, which opened November 2. Generally there was an interval of a week or two at most between fairs. The fairs in Lagny and Barsur- Aube appear to have been less important than those in Troyes and Provins. The fairs followed a rigid schedule. The fi rst week merchants set up their stalls along the streets of the town and prepared for business. The next 10 days merchants sold cloth, the 11 days following that they sold leather and fur, and the next 19 days they traded a variety of other goods. The last few days of the fair merchants balanced their accounts, and all debt and credit was settled by notary bill, which allowed the merchants to travel without carrying a great deal of money. The fairs’ importance did not persist beyond the end of the 13th century. By 1296 businessmen from Florence had taken their business to Lyons, and tax revenues from the fairs fell dramatically. Genoese carracks allowed the Italians to establish a regular sea link via Gibraltar to Bruges, Southampton, and London by 1297. At the same time the most-used overland routes shifted to the east, taking merchants away from Champagne. The 14th century decline of the fairs refl ected a breakdown in law and order, the absorption of Champagne into the domain of the king of France, and the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War. Goods had become increasingly standardized and it was no longer necessary to examine them before every purchase, and the banking houses of Florence and Bruges could handle fi nancial transactions much more effi ciently than a fair. Finally by the 14th century the wealthiest merchants, and perhaps many others, maintained agents in the places where they regularly did business. Couriers carried orders and commercial information back and forth, while professional carters moved the commodities in caravans that they arranged. The “international fairs” declined in importance but did not disappear. Many returned to being regional markets, specializing in livestock, while some handled seasonal goods, wines, or preserved goods. Fairs in other regions grew in importance as those in Champagne declined, but the fairs of Champagne remained regionally important until the Hundred Years’ War. The fairs of Champagne played a vital role in the development of the medieval economy. They provided a center to the increasingly Europewide economy by offering long-distance traders a safe and secure place regularly to transact business, and they played a vital role in the development of Paris and France, whose culture, economy, and political system benefi ted from the international contact the fairs encouraged. See also Frankish tribe. Further reading: Abu-Lughod, Janet L. Before European Hegemony: The World System a.d. 1250–1350. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989; Braudel, Fernand. The Identity of France. Trans. by Siân Reynolds. New York: HarperCollins, 1990; Pounds, N. J. G. An Economic History of Medieval Europe. New York: Longman, 1974; Thompson, James W. Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages (300–1300). New York: The Century Co., 1928. Kevin D. Hill Fatimid dynasty The Fatimid dynasty (named after the prophet Muhammad’s daughter Fatima, from whom the Fatimids claimed descent) was a Shi’i dynasty founded by Abd Allah. Although he was an Isma’ili, Abd Allah did not claim descent from the Imam Isma’il but from the Prophet’s family. When his beliefs led to his persecution in Syria, where most were Sunni Muslims, Abd Allah fl ed to North Africa, where he established a stronghold in Tunisia. He declared himself the Mahdi and was known as Abd Allah al-Mahdi; he established his capital in the city of Mahidiya along the Tunisian coast. His followers crushed local rulers and branches of Shi’ism that had gained support among the Berbers. The Fatimids were especially opposed to the Kharijites, whose egalitarian principles were the opposite of their rigid religious hierarchy. After three failed attempts to take Egypt with its rich Nile Valley, the renowned Fatimid general Jawhar al-Rumi, a former Greek slave, conquered Egypt in 969. Under Abd Allah’s great grandson al-Mu’izz (r. 953–976), the Fatimids built Cairo on the outskirts of the old Arab capital of Fustat as their new religious and administrative city. Fatimid Cairo was a walled city of palaces, mosques, and army barracks. The Fatimids extended their rule over Palestine and Syria but were unable to overthrow the caliphate in Baghdad. At the zenith of their power, the Fatimids controlled the territory from the Orontes in Syria across North Africa. The Assassins, an offshoot of Isma’ili Fatimids, established strongholds in Syria and Persia seeking to undermine and, if possible, destroy Sunni belief and rulers. Although they were zealous missionaries for their particular brand of Islam elsewhere, in Egypt the Fatimids were relatively benign and most of the population remained committed to orthodox Sunni practices. The Copts were retained as administrators over most of the fi nancial affairs of state, as they had been since the Umayyad dynasty. Caliph al-Hakim (r. 996–1021) was a notable exception to Fatimid tolerance in Egypt. Under his rule, Christians and Jews were persecuted and many churches and synagogues destroyed. His followers became known as the Druze. After al-Hakim was assassinated in 1021 his followers alleged that he had been hidden by God, not killed, much like the 12th 116 Fatimid dynasty imam, and fl ed Egypt for the relative security of remote mountain areas in Lebanon. The Fatimid navy played a key role in the dynasty’s power and wealth as it controlled the central Mediterranean and the Red Sea routes. The Fatimids also increased trans-Saharan trade. The Fatimids traded luxury goods and agricultural products with the west and east as far as India. Fatimid rulers established al-Azhar University, which became famous throughout the Muslim world, as well as numerous public buildings and commercial centers. Two branches of the Fatimids, the Almoravids and Almohads (Unitiarians) led by Ibn Tumert, established separate dynasties in Morocco. To strengthen their armed forces the Fatimids imported slave and free Turkish soldiers but the growing dependency on outside forces gradually weakened dynasty. Thus Saladin (Salah ad din, Yusuf) had little diffi culty in overthrowing the Fatimids and returning the territories to Sunni Muslim rule in 1171. See also al-Azhar; Almoravid Empire. Further reading: Brett, Michael. The Rise of the Fatimids: the World of the Mediterranean and the Middle East in the fourth century of the Hijrah, tenth century c.e. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2001; Lev, Yaacov. State and Society in Fatimid Egypt. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991. Janice J. Terry feudalism: Europe Medieval historians have traditionally understood feudalism to be a sociopolitical system that dominated European societies from the fall of the Roman Empire to the start of the Renaissance. This defi nition however has been thrown into question by myriad incongruous details, among which is the notable absence of the word feudalism from the medieval vocabulary. For although terms such as the Old High German words fehu “cattle,” “property,” or “money”; the Old English feoh, feo, fee; and the Latin feodum, all of which are precursors to our word fi ef, appear commonly in medieval sources, feudalism does not appear. It was fi rst employed by 16th-century French and English jurists and legal historians to explain anachronistic property laws in their own societies. To them it denoted a framework in which political and military power were decentralized, private, and local. The system as they envisioned it was based in large part on the concept of the feudal contract, in which land, the fi ef, was granted by the upper echelons of the military aristocracy to free nobles below them, their vassals, in return for fi delity or homage. This vision of medieval European society as a pyramid structure based on the exchange of land for services and fi delity continues in large part to dominate popular imagination. In the 1970s historians began to highlight the conceptual fl aws of the feudalism theory, pointing out that it existed not all over Europe, but only in a handful of locales, and only between the 10th and 13th centuries. It did not, therefore, dominate all of Europe for the better part of 10 centuries. When Roman imperial organization collapsed in the fi fth century, political authority fragmented. In this early period as numerous groups such as Vandals, Goths, Vikings, and Muslims threatened to invade former Roman territories, features of what would later be called feudalism emerged. The fi rst of these was a type of contract in which, in return for rewards and war booty, an armed retainer offered military aid to a lord. This was advantageous for the lord, since private armies were extremely expensive to raise and maintain. Without a central government to organize and pay soldiers the onus fell to individuals or family groups to muster as much force as possible. Such techniques of dealing with a decentralized political situation were probably familiar to people on some level. In many ways, they were an amalgamation of preexisting Roman and Germanic customs. Romans, for example, had engaged in a system of patronage, in which powerful patrons would offer protection and services to clients in exchange for political support, loyalty, or gifts. This clientelism became mixed with a Germanic military custom in which an elected chief, after conquering territory with his army, distributed land and booty among his men in exchange for their continued allegiance. While the armed retainer of the early Middle Ages was useful in situations of war and confl ict, lords were eventually faced with the problem of housing and maintaining the young men in their service. A logical solution was to offer them a plot of land, on which they could live, and off which they could make a living other than war. It was in the eighth century that Charles Martel made the fi rst land grants in exchange for military service. In theory, the feudal system was based on this type of land tenure in which a landowner, or suzerain, granted rights to a piece of land (a fi ef, or Latin feudum) to a vassal in return for specifi c obligations. In addition to land, rights or honors could also be granted as fi efs. While the fi rst fi efs were small, by the 12th century they were often estates employing large numbers of feudalism: Europe 117 peasants. The vassal receiving the fi ef had the right of ban, or command, over the peasants. The fi ef became inheritable property, and the vassals, as a result, became a landed aristocracy, meaning that their wealth was based in land. Upon inheriting a fi ef however the new tenant might have had to pay a fee, called a relief, before assuming it. The relief could be large, up to a year’s income. In other cases the tenant might just seek written confi rmation of his property rights to ensure, or to make public, his continued status. If the deceased vassal’s heir was a child, the lord could take him as a ward and collect the income from the property until the child matured, or he could bestow such rights on another vassal. If the child was female, the lord could choose her husband. Since many men were eager to marry propertied heiresses, the lord could profi t fi nancially by offering her in marriage to the highest bidder. In some cases the heiress herself offered the lord substantial sums of money to avoid marrying a disfavored suitor. By the high Middle Ages in some places in Europe, a ceremony had evolved by which lords and vassals formalized their ties. In this highly symbolic ceremony the vassal knelt before the lord, bowed his head, and put his hands, palms together, between the hands of his lord. After swearing an oath, the vassal became his lord’s man or in French, homme. For this reason this ritual became known as homage. The lord then kissed the vassal on his lips and raised him to his feet. In addition the vassal might also be asked to swear fealty (a derivation of the Latin fi delitas, meaning faithfulness) to the lord, by which he contractually agreed to offer him auxilium et consilium, or military service and legal counsel. The latter he did by appearing in the lord’s court, which functioned both as a court of justice and as an administrative council. The vassal also agreed to offer “feudal aids.” These were monetary contributions for specifi c situations such as crusade, ransom, the knighting of his eldest son, or the marriage of his daughter. These contributions could become quite substantial if the lord went on an extended military campaign. Finally the vassal could be expected to hand over a portion of his harvest to his lord, or even to grind his wheat and bake bread in the ovens owned and taxed by the lord. The lord had reciprocal responsibilities toward his vassals. First among these was maintenance. While the vassal was entitled to the fi ef’s revenues, the lord was obliged to ensure that the land be maintained. Equally important was the responsibility the lord bore for offering the vassal physical protection and security. This he did by marshalling his military force when needed. The feudal relations between vassal and lord as described probably did exist in medieval Europe, yet only in a handful of locales for limited periods of time. Surely more common were the innumerable variations on the classical model, some of which varied to such a degree that they could hardly be called feudal. Some instances have been found, for example, in which lords demanded feudal aids from nonfi efholding commoners rather than fi efholding nobles. In other instances, feudal aids were asked of newcomers to a region and not of longstanding inhabitants. In addition, there were high levels of regional variation such that the classical model appears to have applied only to a small region of France during the 12th and 13th centuries. The king of France had little central authority and little or no power over the great land owning lords. In France therefore feudalism implied a fragmentary and localized structure whose reciprocal bonds of loyalty and protection did not extend to the very top of society. By the ninth and 10th centuries Italy from Rome northward exhibited similar characteristics to some French regions, but the growth of the commercial trading cities such as Florence and Venice in the 11th and 12th centuries introduced a money economy and an urbanized merchant class that did not fi t the classic feudal model. Still the region north of the Po River, particularly the area around Milan, continued to adhere closely to the French pattern of feudal relations. Without a centralizing monarchy, northern Italian lords remained powerful and independent of royal authority. Unlike in France and northern Italy the king in England was, from the 11th century on, the pinnacle and nucleus of the political hierarchy. All lords held their fi efs directly from him, and in return they owed him military and court service, and on occasion, fi nancial aid. English feudalism was therefore much more an integrated system than elsewhere. Yet even here there were elements deviating from the classical model, for even though the great lords swore fi delity to the king, they did not perform homage to him. And since even in this circumstance peasants did not partake in the feudal contract, the feudal structure did not, in any explicit sense, permeate the lower rungs of society. Societies with expansive open borders to defend, such as the German lands east of the Rhine and the frontier between Christian and Muslim Spain, developed different social structures generally marked by weak monarchies and powerful local nobilities. In some Slavic kingdoms, serfdom, in which peasants are tied to the land, became the dominant phenomenon. In other frontier societies such as Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, 118 feudalism: Europe enterprising barons could set up semi-independent lordships, though even there they were not entirely free from the king’s authority. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the Crusader States in the Levant exhibited a kind of purifi ed feudal tenure wherein the lords held supreme power in their local realms. Until its fall in the mid-13th century, the Norman kingdom in southern Italy exhibited a variant of French Norman feudal relations. Medieval historians have revealed wide disparities over distance and time in the structure of social hierarchies and practices of land tenure. Caveats such as these have made them question whether the term feudalism is still useful for understanding medieval history. Since most historians now use the term with caution, feudalism is probably best used in a narrow sense to describe the relationship between lords and noblemen when they ritually exchanged protection for military and legal support. Despite more than a decade of debate, medieval historians still vary in their conclusions about the accuracy of the term feudalism for describing and understanding medieval European society. See also feudalism: Japan; Norman kingdoms of Italy and sicily. Further reading: Bartlett, Robert. The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization, and Cultural Change 950–1350. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993; Barthélemy, Dominique. “Debate—The ‘Feudal Revolution’ I.” Past and Present (v.152, 1996); Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society. Trans. by L. A. Manyon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1961; Ganshof, Francois-Lois. Feudalism. Trans. by Philip Grierson. New York: Harper and Row, 1964; Guerreau, Alain. L’avenir d’un passé incertain. Paris: Le Seuil, 2001; Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Alizah Holstein feudalism: Japan When most people think of feudalism, medieval Europe from about the ninth to 15th centuries is most likely to come to mind. The term feudalism is of fairly recent origin, coined in the 17th century by lawyers and antiquarians who used it to describe rules of land tenure, legal customs, and political institutions that had survived from medieval times. For Marxist historians the key elements of feudalism are the relationships between the feudal landholders and their serfs, whom they compel by force, custom, or law to provide labor, money, or tribute. Other non-Marxist historians defi ne feudalism as a system of military and political organizations in which armed warriors or knights served leaders, who in turn provided them with land grants in return for personal service. Despite the fact that many of Japan’s governmental structures and institutions were based in part on those of China, Japan’s feudal culture was in many ways more like that of feudal Europe. By the 19th century, historians generally agreed that the warriors of Japan were the “Oriental” counterparts to the knights of Europe. The roots of Japanese feudalism can be traced back to the seventh century in Japan and extend through the medieval period of Japanese history. Japan’s political and economic order did not meet the defi nition of “full feudalism” until about the year 1300, which is much later than the onset of European feudalism. Many of the laws and institutions described as feudal protected privileges of the landholding aristocracy and allowed them to use their power over the peasant class. Feudalism from the modern historian’s perspective has taken on negative connotations as being outdated, oppressive, or irrational. The primary virtue in the Japanese feudal system was loyalty, because the entire social-political system depended on personal relationships. Contrary to the lord-vassal relationships of European feudalism that were based on mutual and contractual obligation, the Japanese emphasized morality. Loyalty to one’s lord manifested from a belief that he was the superior moral leader. Unlike in China, where familial loyalty was the dominant ideology, in Japan loyalty to one’s lord was paramount. This is not to say that family ties were unimportant in medieval Japanese society, as inheritance determined power and prestige as well as property ownership. Japanese feudalism also differed from European feudalism in that there was no cult of chivalry that put women on a romantic pedestal as fragile and inferior beings. Japanese warriors expected their women to be as strong as they were and accept self-sacrifi ce as part of their obligation to their lord. The Japanese warriors, who were known as samurai, or “servitors,” placed great importance on the military virtues of bravery, honor, self-discipline, and the stoical acceptance of death. Seppuku, ritual suicide by disembowelment, became the dominant alternative to dishonor or capture. Warrior class-consciousness—a sense of the warrior class as a separate entity—did not materialize until the 13th century when the Kamakura Shogunate (rule by a military generalissimo) took power. The new institution created a new category of shogunal retainer that held special privileges and responsibilities and feudalism: Japan 119 narrowed the scope of social classes the samurai class comprised. Its founder, Minamoto Yoritoto, consciously helped foster this new warrior ethos by holding hunts and archery competitions that helped to solidify the warrior identity. As the samurai served as the enforcers of feudal rule, their role in Japanese history was extremely important and the lord-vassal relationship was pivotal to feudal order. Beginning in the early seventh century the Yamato court introduced several Chinese political and governmental practices in order to increase the power of the ruler. Within one century the Yamato court transformed itself into a Chinese-style monarchy. The main players in this governmental shift came not only from members of the ruling family, but also from powerful group leaders associated with the Yamato court. China provided both political ideals and a set of political institutions that extended further than the unsophisticated attempts at centralization begun in the sixth century. Integral to the innovations of the seventh and eighth centuries was a new concept of ruler. Reformers borrowed the Chinese notion of an absolute monarch whose authority went beyond kinship ties. The monarch was considered “the master of the people and the master of the whole land,” and people pledged their allegiance to him and him alone. By the end of the seventh century the ruler was called tenno, or emperor, and the title brought with it increased authority. The establishment of an imperial capital also helped legitimize the emperor’s ruling status. The fi rst capital was constructed in the southern end of the Yamato Basin but was eventually moved to Nara in 710. In 794 the capital was moved to Heian, later known as Kyoto, where it remained until the 19th century. However the monarchial state did not survive much beyond the eighth century. Part of the demise of the monarchy can be attributed to the emphasis placed on heredity rather than meritocracy. The members of the Yamato clan were unwilling to share power, as it was synonymous with wealth in the form of land grants, household servants, and agricultural laborers. The old clan leadership was thus transformed into a new ruling class that was dependent on imperial supremacy. Notwithstanding the departure of the monarchial state from the goals originally intended by the reformers of the seventh century, the emperor, the court, and the aristocracy at the capital survived for several more centuries largely because of the rise of private estates called shoen. Private estates became the primary source of aristocratic wealth and allowed court aristocrats to exert more power and control. By the end of the 12th century, some historians estimate, more than half the cultivated land was owned privately. By the late 10th and early 11th centuries warrior chieftains threatened political order and began to emerge with more regularity. Powerful chieftains like Taira Masakado, who owned vast landed estates in the Kanto region, capitalized on the imperial government’s weakness and challenged its authority. These challenges contributed to the breakup of the court into many aristocratic factions that competed for power and drew certain warrior families into capital politics. Most infl uential were the Seiwa branch of the Minamoto family and the Ise branch of the Taira family. By the late 11th century the Seiwa infl uence in the east and the Taira infl uence in the west had both established important connections in the capital. After a series of power struggles, Taira Kiyomori emerged with increased infl uence in the court and political power. With a lack of local authority, however, Kiyomori’s ascendancy ended with the outbreak of the Gempei War (1180–85). Minamoto Yorimoto and his followers succeeded in driving the Taira out of the capital and in 1185 their armies were defeated in the west. The victory meant that Yorimoto became the most powerful chieftain in Japan. This victory was a defi ning moment in Japanese history because it resulted in the founding of the Kamakura Bakufu, or “tent government.” Yorimoto sought political independence and wanted to avoid immersion in court politics. Yorimoto’s success can largely be attributed to the lord-vassal bonds he established during the Gempei War. In 1192 Yorimoto took the title of shogun or “generalissimo.” This title brought with it the responsibility of preserving national peace and order. Eventually however the shogun became a warrior monarch whose power came from the imperial government and actually extended beyond it. Yorimoto remained in power until his death in 1199. His death started a crisis of sorts because Yorimoto, perhaps because he distrusted his closest kin, did not make effective arrangements for a successor. Hence power fell into the hands of the Hojo clan, where it remained until the end of the Bakufu in 1333. The Kamakura Bakufu marked a big step toward a purely feudal political order. The decline of Bakufu authority was integral to the onset of full political feudalism, and the Kamakura government was overthrown in 1334, driven by the anarchistic ambitions of Go-Daigo, who hoped to reinstate direct imperial rule. This demise combined with civil war brought the estate system to an end. Go-Daigo’s reign was short-lived and in 1336 Ashikaga Takauji, a powerful warrior leader, was named shogun by Go-Daigo’s successor. 120 feudalism: Japan Civil war ended in 1392, and, even though some order was restored, Japan was less unifi ed. By the mid- 15th century, social and political unrest led to the Onin War in Japan. The period after the Onin War is considered the beginning of the “warring states” period in Japanese history, a time when the Ashikaga Shogunate was destroyed and a new group of feudal magistrates emerged from the local warrior class. Domains fell into the hands of feudal lords, known as daimyo, who used force and their loyal vassals to maintain their power, enforcing land taxes to keep the peasantry under much stricter control. By 1500 the country was divided into the hands of roughly 300 daimyo. By the 1560s many of the more powerful daimyo sought power beyond their realms and some even hoped to control all of Japan. Unifi cation, however, was largely the work of three men, sometimes called “the great unifi ers,” Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. Nobunaga seized Kyoto in 1568, allegedly in support of the last Ashikaga shogun; crushed the power of the lesser lords in central Japan; and destroyed the Buddhist monasteries. Nobunaga was assassinated in 1590 and power fell into the hands of his most able general, Hideyoshi. By 1590 Hideyoshi established control over the entire realm. Hideyoshi never took the title of shogun but did assume high positions in imperial government. Hideyoshi monopolized foreign trade, had land surveyed, and confi scated weapons from the peasant class. These actions further divided the samurai and peasant classes while increasing Hideyoshi’s military might. In 1592 he set out to conquer Korea, a fi rst step toward world conquest, which for him essentially meant China. However Chinese armies in northern Korea stopped the Japanese, and they were forced to withdraw after Hideyoshi’s death in 1592. Hideyoshi did not leave an heir, and power shifted to the victor of the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600, Tokugawa Ieyasu. Ieyasu took the title of shogun and moved his residence from Kyoto to Edo (modern Tokyo). He closed the country to foreigners and for more than 250 years, Japan remained in seclusion from the rest of the world. While feudalism in Japan began later than in Europe, its demise was much more recent. In 1600 when Tokugawa Ieyasu took power, Japan entered the period of rule known as “centralized feudalism.” In this system, the Tokugawa Shogunate ruled Japan but gave relative autonomy to his vassal daimyo in exchange for loyalty. Tokugawa rule continued in Japan until 1868, when the Meiji Restoration ended feudal rule, abolished the warrior class, and opened Japan to the rest of the world. See also feudalism: Europe; Taira-Minamoto wars. Further reading: Duus, Peter. Feudalism in Japan. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1993; Friday, Karl F. Samurai Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. New York: Routledge, 2004; Norman, Herbert E. Ando Shoeki and the Anatomy of Japanese Feudalism. Washington, D.C.: University Publications of America, 1979; O’Neill, Tom. “Samurai: Japan’s Way of the Warrior.” National Geographic (December 2003); Reischauer, Edwin O. The Japanese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Ethan Savage and Mohammad Gharipour Ficino, Marsilio (1433–1499) Italian Neoplatonist philosopher Marsilio Ficino was an important Italian Neoplatonist philosopher during the Renaissance and the mainstay of the so-called Florentine Platonic Academy, a circle of philosophers around him. His father was Cosimo de’ Medici’s personal physician, but few details are known of Ficino’s early life. He was trained in medicine and began study of Greek around 1456; these years in Florence were marked by the appearance of Greek philosophers who fl ed the Ottoman advances and reintroduced Plato and Greek literature to Italy. Exposure to such intellectuals may have fostered in Ficino a desire to synthesize Christianity and Greek philosophy. In 1463 Cosimo gave Ficino a villa, where he planned to translate Plato’s dialogues into Latin but also translated the Corpus Hermeticum (a mélange of texts attributed to the Egyptian magus Hermes Tresmegistus). In 1469 he completed a commentary on Plato’s Symposium which he called De amore, a text at the basis of most subsequent Renaissance theorizing on the theme of love. Ficino was ordained in 1473. His most important work, the Theologia Platonica, pursues the goal of uniting Platonism with Christianity as heavily infl uenced by Plotinus, who Ficino felt was Plato’s most important interpreter. Ficino published his Plato edition in 1484 after Cosimo’s death; it relies on the version of Leonardo Bruni. In 1487 Ficino was named a canon of Florence cathedral, but his orthodoxy was called into question by the 1489 publication of his De triplici vita, a treatise on the maintenance of human health rich in astrological and pseudomagical speculation. Threatened with investigation from the curia, he argued disingenuously but successfully that this work represented ancient views and not his own. His ideas thus probably seem more heterodox from our perspective than they did in his own day, a period of intellectual foment in Ficino, Marsilio 121 Christianity. He published a number of commentaries of Neoplatonism such as Iamblichus, Porphyry, Proclus, and Synesius. When he was drawn into the controversy around Savonarola, Ficino’s early support for the preacher later turned to bitter attacks on him. Historians attribute Ficino’s infl uence to a number of factors: the exciting quality of his revival of Neoplatonism, an ecumenical quality to his thinking that may have attracted the more eclectic of Christian theologians, his willingness to sustain an elevated correspondence with hundreds of students and scholars at the highest level, and his willingness to use the printing press, which made him an early author of intellectual best sellers. Although early scholarship suggested that Cosimo de’ Medici supported Ficino as a means of establishing Neoplatonism as a governing ideal in his contemporary Florence, recent scholarship has rejected Ficino’s Neoplatonism as too incoherent to serve as such an ideology. Such scholarship also points out the largely informal character of the Florentine Academy. Interested readers without a background in Greek philosophy may turn to his letters as icons of the elegant Renaissance epistolary style. See also Ottoman Empire: 1299–1453. Further reading: Kristeller, Paul Oskar. The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942; Kristeller, Paul Oskar, ed. The Letters of Marsilio Ficino. London: Shepheard-Walwayn, 1975; Allen, M. J. B., and Valery Reese. Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Susan R. Boettcher Firdawsi (c. 935–c. 1020) author and historian Abu Al-Qasem Mansur Firdawsi was a medieval poet, writer, and historian, best known as an author of the Persian grand epic Shahnamah (the Epic of Kings). This monumental work made him the most recognized and highly regarded writer among Persian-speaking people from Central Asia to the Middle East. Despite his fame, little is known about his personal life and some facts are still disputed, as many accounts of his personal life were written long after his death. It is believed that Firdawsi was born in a small town on the outskirts of the city of Tus situated in Khorasan— the region that is now divided among Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. He was a relatively wealthy dekhqan (landlord), who was devoted to Persian history and poetry. He mastered several languages and had great knowledge of historical and poetic works. In his 20s he began writing prose and later successfully experimented with poetry. By the time he was in his mid-30s he undertook a monumental task—to compose a poem that would cover the history of the Persian world from ancient time to the seventh– eighth centuries c.e. According to some reports, Firdawsi spent his entire adult life, or about 35 years, completing this extraordinary task. His major source of reference, on which he based his research and writing, was the Khvatay-Nameh, a Middle Persian (Pakhlavi) work created under the order of King Khosrow Anushirvan (590–628). His secondary source was a work by the Persian poet Daqiqi (d. c. 976), who attempted to write about early history of the Persian world at the time of the introduction of Zoroastrianism. Some modern literary critics claim that parts of the Shahnamah resemble a mere translation of some chapters of the Khvatay-Nameh. Others argue that he created a completely new work in verses, and that he only used other works as historical sources. As in earlier epics like The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Shahnamah deals with the struggle between the forces of good and evil. Its hero Rustam, with his trusty steed Rakhsh, rescues allies, vanquishes foes, and lives for over 500 years. The fi rst revision of the Shahnamah was completed in 994, and parts of it were shared with close associates. It took another 15 years before it was completed in about 1010. It consisted of between 55,000 and 60,000 couplets (beits) subdivided into 50 sections devoted to various ruling dynasties. According to the tradition of his era, Firdawsi sought to present his work to Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (Ghaznavi) (r. 998–1030), the ruler of Khorasan. Mahmud and his entourage doubted the signifi cance of the work, deeply offending Firdawsi. There are many interpretations of this event, ranging from disapproval of the religious content of the book (Firdawsi describes the rise of Zoroaster) to inappropriate praise of the great pre-Islamic rulers of Persia. The confl ict between the ruler and the poet forced the latter to leave his homeland and move to Heart, and after that to Mazendaran. There are reports that he spent his fi nal days in Baghdad. Some sources indicate that he continued writing poetry but was not as productive as in his early days. Firdawsi died c. 1020, highly respected by his contemporaries, if not by the court of Ghaznavi. See also Shahnamah. Further reading: Browne, Edward Granville. A Literary History of Persia: From Firdawsi to Sa’Di. Bethesda, MD: 122 Firdawsi Iranbooks, 1997; Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. Trans. by Dick Davis. Washington, D.C.: Mage Publishers, 2006; Ferdowsi, Abu’L-Qasem. The Shah nameh: (The Book of Kings). Ed. by Djalal Khaleghi- Motlagh. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 1997; Robinson, B. W. The Persian Book of Kings: An Epitome of the Shahnama of Firdawsi. London: Curzon Press, 2002; Shahbazi, A. Shapur. Ferdowsi: A Critical Biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Rafi s Abazov Five Dynasties of China The great Tang (T’ang) dynasty, founded in 618, was wrecked by the Huang Zhao (Huang Ch’ao) Rebellion that lasted between 875 and 884. It was put down only with the help of regional warlords and Turkic allies (the Turks who lived to the north of China were called Shatou), who retained power. In 907 a Shatou chief slaughtered the last Tang emperor and most members of the Tang imperial family and proclaimed himself emperor of the Later Liang dynasty. Thus began the Five Dynasties Era, 907–960. It was also called the Five Dynasties and Ten States Era, because none of the Five Dynasties controlled lands beyond the Yellow River plains of northern China whereas central and southern China were ruled by 10 regional states, each occupying about one province in that region. Later historians did not give any of the Ten States the status of a legitimate “dynasty” which succeeded one another throughout Chinese history. The Five Dynasties were 1. Later Liang (16 years, 907–923, three rulers) 2. Later Tang (T’ang) (13 years, 923–936, four rulers) 3. Later Jin (Chin) (10 years, 936–946, two rulers) 4. Later Han (three years, 947–950, two rulers) 5. Later Zhou (Chou) (nine years, 951–960, three rulers) The fi rst and last of the fi ve were ruled by Han Chinese families; the remaining three were headed by men of Turkic tribes, but who were largely Sinicized. For example the Later Tang rulers had served the Tang dynasty as provincial governors and had been bestowed with the Tang imperial surname Li. All fi ve dynasties were founded by military adventurers, and within each dynasty, family members or rivals assassinated many rulers. The wars and rebellions that ended the Tang dynasty had so devastated Chang’an (Ch’ang-an) that it would never be China’s capital again. The center of political power would shift eastward from Shaanxi (Shensi) province, which was the cradle of Chinese civilization, to Henan (Honan) province, where both Luoyang (Loyang) and Kaifeng (K’ai-feng) (then called Bian or Pien) were located. Both cities were capital of some of the dynasties during this era, Luoyang because of its historic importance. Kaifeng is east of Luoyang, also on the southern side of the Yellow River, and was easily accessible by roads and the Grand Canal. It would remain the capital under the Song (Sung) dynasty, between 960 and 1126. However Kaifeng was without natural bulwarks and was thus vulnerable to attacks. Chang’an became the capital of the impoverished Shaanxi province and its name was changed to Xi’an (Sian). The wars and invasions that so disrupted northern China in the ninth and 10 centuries also greatly diminished the long-entrenched leadership of the “eminent clans” that had dominated political and social life since the Han dynasty, because so many other members were killed in the confl icts. This would result in a profound social change and in the creation of a more egalitarian society. Another factor contributing to growing egalitarianism is the invention of printing. Block printing to produce books began in the seventh century (paper was invented in China in the fi rst century). It was during the Five Dynasties, between 932 and 953, that the fi rst complete printed edition of the 11 Confucian Classics (plus two supplementary works) totaling 130 volumes was produced, under government sponsorship of four dynasties. Luoyang, Kaifeng, and several cities in the south became centers of a vibrant printing industry. Cheaper printed books, as opposed to the expensive hand copied ones, increased literacy and enabled sons of middle-class families to compete in the state exams. This fact also contributed to the breaking of the lock on power by the “eminent clans.” In contrast to the turmoil North China suffered from the late Tang through the Five Dynasties, southern China was relatively peaceful and continued to prosper. Many great poets and painters of the era came from southern China. This was a trend that would continue during the next 1,000 years. During the Han and Tang dynasties the frontier that had threatened China’s security had been Central Asia, which included ancient lands called Sogdiana, Bactria, Transoxannia, and Ferghana in ancient Western texts (modern Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizstan, and part of Kazakhistan) to the Caspian Sea. The threat had shifted by the ninth century to a region called “Inner Asia” that extended from the Pacifi c Ocean westward for 3,000 miles to the Pamir Mountains and from the Great Wall of China Five Dynasties of China 123 northward for 1,000 miles to Siberia in present day Russia; it included modern Mongolia, Chinese Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang (Sinkiang), Tibet, and Russia east of the Pamir Mountains. In the 10th century two states dominated by pastoral nomads ringed northern China. They were the Khitan state called Liao rooted in the northeast, and the Tangut state called Xixia (Hsi Hsia) rooted in the northwest. The founder of the Later Jin (Chin) dynasty ceded 16 prefectures in northeastern China, including the area around modern Beijing, to the Khitan Liao. This session bequeathed serious consequences to the Song dynasty; seeking to regain this historically Chinese land the second Song emperor would go to war with the Liao, with disastrous results. Another legacy of the Five Dynasties to the Song was the pivotal role of the army in the founding of each dynasty, since the Song too was founded as a result of a coup d’etat, and seeking to end the cycle, Song Taizu (T’ai-tsu) would reorganize his army and put it under civilian control. The result was no more coups d’etat, but also an incompetent Song army. See also Liao dynasty; Printing, invention in China. Further reading: Mote, F. W. Imperial China, 900–1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999; Bol, Peter K. This Culture of Ours: Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992; Eberhard, Wolfram. Conquerors and Rulers, Social Forces in Medieval China. Leiden, 1952; Paludan, Ann. Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors. London: Thames and Hudson, 1998; Wamg, Gung-wu. The Structure of Power in North China during the Five Dynasties. Stanford: Stanford University Press rpt., 1967. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Five, or Six, Pillars of Islam When the prophet Muhammad sensed that he was about to leave this earthly life, he summoned his followers to keep a code of fi ve parts called the Five Pillars. Following are the pillars, given in their Arabic names, though each of the words has a long history in the Semitic world. Often another pillar is added as the sixth pillar. FIRST PILLAR The fi rst pillar is the shahada or creed. The creed stands in contrast to those of conventional Christianity, for it is only one line and two parts: There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. Thus, entrance to Islam is easy and direct and does not require mastery of a mass of information or details. However easy the words, the shahada must not be taken lightly, but with sincere heart. This line is something like the Jewish shema prayer (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one”), with an affi rmation of God’s unity and uniqueness. What is different from the Jewish profession is that there is a second plank—“Muhammad is his prophet”—and this second line separates Islam from all other religions. Muslims believe that the line about Muhammad does not nullify all the prophets who spoke before Muhammad. The angel Jibril (Gabriel) fi rst spoke these lines to Muhammad in the cave of Hira. The shahada is repeated 17 times in daily prayer, and ideally it is the fi rst thing a newborn baby and the last thing a dying person hears. SECOND PILLAR The second pillar is salat or prayer. Ideally this pillar involves group or societal prayer, for Muhammad was interested in bringing people together into community. In accordance with this goal, the call to prayer comes fi ve times a day through the mouth of the muezzin on top of a minaret. Muhammad’s Abyssinian slave, Bilal, is known to have issued the fi rst call to prayer in Medina, and then later it is known to have occurred during the fi rst hajj in 632. The main times for such prayers are dawn, noon, midafternoon, sunset, and nightfall, and the main prayer day is Friday, so that the community’s rhythm is centered on prayer throughout the day and week. If, however, a Muslim fi nds that prayer at the mosque is not possible, then prayer can be anywhere and solitary. The rituals and schedule surrounding prayer are not unique to Islam but show customs and traditions inherited from other Middle Eastern religions: The body, especially the hands and feet, must be washed; shoes must be taken off; prostrations, that is, a full bow to the ground; kneeling; veils for women; worship must face a particular direction; regular days and times for prayer; unison of activities. THIRD PILLAR The third pillar is zakat or purifi cation. As time went on, the pillar came to be associated with tithing and almsgiving. The principle of charity is that all riches come from Allah, so that the tithe or alms is only a formal token that everything belongs to Allah, and again this is the same for Christians and Jews. The effect of this token offering is that the whole of the Muslim’s goods are purifi ed, and hence the word zakat is appropriate. This concept of tithing is also found in rabbinic Judaism. The minimal amount required of Muslims is 2.5 percent of all 124 Five, or Six, Pillars of Islam resources annually, but Muhammad intended that generosity would mark all the Muslims’ dealings with their society. He once said, “Even meeting your brother with a cheerful face is charity.” Muhammad also envisioned zakat as a device to help the poor and disadvantaged in his community of Arabs. It would force the rich to take care of the poor, and it would equalize human dignity because both the rich and the poor had to pay the same amount and had equal standing before Allah. In certain Islamic nations the zakat payment is automatically levied on all Muslim citizens. Many centuries later such practices, whether compelled or voluntary, could not fail to impress a recent convert like the American civil rights leader Malcolm X. FOURTH PILLAR The fourth pillar is sawm or fasting, which occurs during the month of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim lunar calendar. The Muslim fasts not only from food, but drink and sex, though the fast does not continue past sunset each day. For people unable to maintain the rigor of the fast (the sick, elderly, travelers, and the pregnant), the same obligations do not apply. The fasting is part of a bigger personal program to purify thoughts and behavior. Ramadan is a joyful month in spite of sawm. It ends with Eid al-Fitr, a family occasion involving special foods and gift giving. During the month families will often come together after sunset to break the fast with a celebrative meal and then visit the mosque for evening prayer. Often the entire Qur’an is recited over the course of the month. Muhammad’s view was again that fasting would bring the community together in discipline and solidarity. Ramadan is somewhat like Lent, the Christian season before Easter, though the Christian emphasis on remorse for sin and mystical participation in divine suffering and resurrection is not in Islam. Spiritual growth is a priority during fasting seasons for all three Abrahamic religions, as is concern for the poor and needy. FIFTH PILLAR The fi fth pillar is hajj or pilgrimage. The duty of every Muslim is to visit Mecca and Medina if time, strength, and resources allow. Some 2,000,000 people or more gather annually in Saudi Arabia to renew their faith, visit the holy sites, and solidify international acquaintances. Although authorities have poured billions of dollars into accommodations, crowded conditions and tense rivalries often result in violence and loss of life during the month of hajj. Usually the rituals of hajj begin 60 days after Ramadan. Pilgrims wear special garments and spend their time in tent cities and in ceremonial walks and events. All of these features are calculated to equalize human distinctions among all the hajjis. They walk seven times around the Kaaba, a cube-shaped shrine set up for the Black Stone, an object considered sacred to Muslims. Another pilgrimage involves walking seven times between two hills in Mecca, where supposedly Hagar, the Egyptian maid of the patriarch Abraham, searched desperately for water. Then the pilgrims stand together on the plain of Arafat, where Muhammad made his fi nal speech, commanding the observance of these fi ve pillars of Muslim faith. This event symbolizes the summoning of all people for the last judgment. The pilgrims spend the night nearby and gather stones. On the next day, they sacrifi ce a ram to remind them that a ram was substituted for Ishmael. A day later they use stones previously gathered and throw them at three upright rock slabs that symbolize Satan. The hajj ends with a fi nal walk around the Ka’aba and the Black Stone. The implication of hajj is that there is physical ground or space that is more sacred to Muslims than other places. The concept of pilgrimage is an ancient one, and Islam simply builds on the concept as it came from the Jewish and Christian faiths. Muhammad, or the angel Jibril, did not discover the sacredness of Mecca—it was already well known as a site of religious tourism with many statues and symbols already in place when Islam took control. The sacred Black Stone was an object of veneration that Muhammad, or Jibril, apparently did not see as idolatrous. What it is cannot be ascertained, but perhaps it is similar to the stones and natural objects such as meteorites or volcanic rock forms that other religions have long venerated. SIXTH PILLAR It is sometimes asserted that there is a sixth pillar: jihad or struggle. Muhammad did not teach this pillar as such, but somehow he inculcated his followers with a drive to spread their faith. Jihad was the byword for the campaign, but the sense of the word may not be military as much as spiritual. The “struggle” was not against other nations as much as against evil: evil in the soul, evil in the spiritual world, evil in society. Early Muslims in fact were remarkably tolerant of Christians and Jews, far more tolerant than medieval Christians were of non-Christians. Muslims found many ways to spread their faith without engaging in armed confl ict, though their jihad applied pressures on the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians to convert. Five, or Six, Pillars of Islam 125 See also Islam: art and architecture in the golden age; Islam: literature and music in the golden age; Islam: science and technology in the golden age; Islamic law. Further reading: Esposito, J. L., et al. Geography of Religion: Where God Lives, Where Pilgrims Walk. Hanover, PA: National Geographic, 2004; Farah, Caesar E. Islam. 6th ed. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Service, 2000. Mark F. Whitters Florence, Council of The Council of Florence, which ran from 1438 to 1445, was a council of Roman Catholic bishops and other church offi cials that convened to reform the church and deal with the issues of the east-west schism. The year 1054 marks the date of the schism that broke Christendom into its western (Latin/Catholic) and eastern (Orthodox) branches. Their differences were fi rst brought to light in the ninth century when eastern missionaries (like Cyril and Methodios) working among the Slavs and Bulgars encountered western missionaries, as Constantinople and Rome vied for infl uence in Central Europe and the Balkans. These differences included the Eucharist (unleavened bread for the west, leavened for the east) and fi lioque (the addition of the phrase and the son to the Nicene Creed, which fi rst appeared in the west in the sixth century and was adopted by the papacy in the 11th century). Eastern Christendom, on the other hand, adhered to the offi cial and original creed promulgated by the fourth century Ecumenical Council, and the papacy (which in the west was understood as the head of the church, while in the east it is given primacy of honor, but viewed as only equal in power to the patriarch of Constantinople). Other differences emerged later, such as clerical celibacy (required in the west, while in the east priests could be married prior to ordination, though monks and bishops could not) and the doctrine of purgatory (accepted in the west, but not in the east). The gulf between east and west was driven home to the Orthodox Church during the Crusades, as wave upon wave of western Christians passed through the empire, often pillaging and threatening violence. The Fourth Crusade resulted in the Western Christian conquest of Constantinople and much of the Byzantine Empire in 1204. After the Orthodox reconquest of Constantinople in 1261, the east continued to view western Christendom with great suspicion. Yet, as the political situation in the east grew more endangered, Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus offered to submit the Orthodox Church to the Western Church at the Council of Lyons in 1274. Michael achieved his political objective when the pope stopped the invasion of Byzantium by the west. Despite the emperor’s efforts, the union was not accepted in Byzantium and was repudiated by his successor in 1282. Byzantium continued to endure political and economic troubles, exacerbated by the rise of the Ottoman Turks in the early 14th century. As the Ottomans expanded their control over Anatolia and the Balkans, Constantinople was caught in an Ottoman vise. In desperate need of help, Emperor John VIII Palaiologus turned to the west. The price, as before, was submission to ecclesiastical union. An Orthodox delegation of 700, including the emperor and patriarch, journeyed (at Pope Eugenius IV’s expense) to Italy. The council opened in Ferrara in October 1438 and was moved to Florence in February 1439 for security reasons. The aforementioned issues were discussed and, as at Lyons, the Orthodox Church submitted to the Western Church. The emperor, the patriarch, and all the delegates signed the Union of the Churches—with the notable exception of Mark Eugenikos, metropolitan of Ephesus. Many recanted, including George Scholarios—later the monk Gennadios—who, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, became the fi rst patriarch under the Ottoman Turks. The emperor had hoped that the union would bring about the security of the empire, but Sultan Murad II defeated a western crusade at the Battle of Varna in 1444, and in 1453 the Ottomans conquered Constantinople. The Orthodox Church repudiated the council shortly afterward, although the Catholic Church continues to view this as an ecumenical council. After the union was signed, the council tried to reconcile the Catholic Church with the oriental orthodox churches, including the Armenians, Syrian “Jacobites,” Nestorians, and Maronites. Although widespread union was not achieved, the interaction of the council members encouraged connections between east and west. See also Constantinople, massacre of; Ottoman Empire. Further reading: Hussey, J. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986; Nicol, D. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453. London: Hart-Davis, 1972. Matthew Herbst and Bryan Eyman 126 Florence, Council of Florentine Neoplatonism Florentine Neoplatonism is the Italian Renaissance revival of Neoplatonism, led by Marsilio Ficino (1433–99) and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94), that fl ourished in 15th century Florence. This renewed interest in Neoplatonism, or the philosophy formulated by Plotinus (205–270 c.e.) and founded upon the thought of Plato (427–347 b.c.e.), was due both to the waning religious values of the time and to the aristocratic shift of emphasis under members of the Medici family from worldly affairs to a life of contemplation. Plato’s portrayal of Socrates in the Republic as a sage critical of Greek democracy and devoted to meditation on timeless and immaterial truths lent itself so well to the new social sentiment that it supplanted the Roman statesman as the ideal of human life. Fascinated by the humanist rediscovery of classical ideals Cosimo de’ Medici selected his doctor’s gifted young son, Marsilio Ficino, to become a Greek scholar and Platonic philosopher. An intellectual giant whose mind comprehended and synthesized complete philosophical systems, Ficino opened his Platonic Academy, not a school in the formal sense, but a salon where he oversaw the scholarly discussions of friends and visitors, at Careggi in 1466. Two years later he edited the entire corpus of Plato, published by the Aldine Press in Venice, and translated Plato’s Dialogues into Latin. In 1469 Ficino composed his commentary on Plato’s Symposium and translated various treatises of Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and Dionysius the Areopagite. From 1469 to 1474, he developed his “pious philosophy” or “learned religion,” an elaborate Neoplatonic philosophical edifi ce, in his masterpiece, the Theologia Platonica. Emphasizing that divine poetry and allegory furnish the veil of true religion, which can only be expressed mystically and not in precise syllogisms, Ficino’s system proved quite congenial to several Renaissance poets, authors, and artists. Central to Ficino’s system were the twin suppositions that the individual constitutes the center of the universe and that the goal of human life lies in the internal ascent of the soul toward the divine or God. Drawing heavily on Plotinus’s Enneads, Ficino pictured the cosmos and everything within it as a great hierarchy of being and described the “One,” or God, as the absolute universal essence. God is the coincidentia oppositorum, or the reconciliation of all opposites, in whom all things fi nd unity. Embracing infi nity within himself, God brings the lesser orders into being through emanations from his substance, resulting in a ladder of bodies, natural attributes, souls, and angelic minds that delineates the way of ascent to the One. At the center of this ladder, humanity is bound to the material realm by the body and to the intelligible, or spiritual, realm by the soul, which facilitates its rise to divine reunion through contemplation. For Ficino such philosophical contemplation comprises a spiritual experience in which the soul retreats from the body and from all external things into its own being, learning that it is a product of divine emanation and that God is therefore immanent. Derivative from this conception is the immortality of the soul, as Ficino insists that no mortal entity can partake of the beatifi c vision. At this juncture Ficino imports Christian theology into his system: Where Plotinus had envisaged a mediator, or demiurge, between the untainted One and the subdivided intelligible and material realm, Ficino identifi ed this mediator with the divine Logos, or Christ, “the Word who became fl esh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14). As the intermediary between God and humanity, Christ both serves as an archetype of sanctifi ed humanity and leads fallen humanity to love God. Moreover Christ’s atoning sacrifi ce on the cross proves God’s unfailing love for humanity and frees all human souls for the ascent to God. In order for the individual to reach the divine, however, Ficino contended that the soul must make a leap of spiritual love by loving God for his own sake, thereby attaining participation in the One, who is, by nature, love. This notion of “Platonic love” is the nucleus of Ficino’s philosophy, since the universe is formed and ruled by the ideal of love. Accordingly, four spheres of aesthetic values fi nd their center in the good, the moral nature of God, which is immovable and emanates divine majesty throughout the universe. Ficino maintained that body and soul could only be inseparable, as they will be in the general resurrection, if they are merged into the activity of love. Therefore love originates in God and manifests as spiritual love in the angelic minds and becomes sensual, pleasurable, and erotic love in the corporeal realm. Since humans possess free will, they can choose between the spiritual love of the intelligible realm and the erotic love of the physical domain. Ficino postulated a “light metaphysic” in which light is the laughter of heaven and expresses the joy of the communion of saints. This cosmology harmonized nicely with prevailing astrological theories already exerting a profound infl uence on many Renaissance thinkers. Most brilliant of Ficino’s pupils was Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the youngest son of Francesco Pico, count of Mirandola and Concordia, a small principality just west of Ferrara. Although matriculating at the Florentine Neoplatonism 127 University of Bologna at 14, he longed for international travel and left on a “student wandering” that took him to universities throughout Germany and France. At Paris he became fascinated by the study of Scholastic theology and linguistics, learning Latin and Greek, but also Hebrew, Arabic, and other Near Eastern languages. He then took up study of the Kabbalah, or Jewish mystical tradition, and the Talmud. Cultivating his interest in mysticism, the Kabbalah enabled Pico to view the world and all states of affairs therein as revelations of the immanent presence of God. In 1486 Pico journeyed to Rome, where he published 900 Conclusiones, as a thesis for a public disputation he wished to hold. Pope Alexander VI deemed several of Pico’s theses as heretical and blocked distribution of his small book. In his defense Pico drew up an Apology, which convinced Alexander to exonerate Pico from the anathema and confi rm his orthodoxy. As a rhetorical preface to the Conclusiones, Pico wrote his famous “Oration on the Dignity of Man,” perhaps the most infl uential essay of the Renaissance. Exceeding the anthropological assessment of his teacher Ficino, Pico asserted that humanity is the king of creation and the product of unique divine design rather than merely the middle link in the great chain of being. Such greatness is based on the human ability to renounce the material and direct all attention and energy to the spiritual aspect. Attempting to reconcile Neoplatonic philosophy with the Jewish scriptures, Pico followed a line of Jewish exegetical tradition ranging from Philo of Alexandria (30 b.c.e.–50 c.e.) to Moses Maimonides (1135–1204) by interpreting its narratives as symbolic of a deeper and hidden meaning. In 1491 Pico composed the Heptaplus, a mystical commentary on the Genesis creation account, and Of Being and Unity, a philosophical treatise on the relationship between God and the world. He was drawn to the preaching of the friar Savonarola. Savonarola’s accent of human sinfulness and demands for reform in the church provoked Pico to refl ect on the darker side of human life. Pico wrote lamentful commentaries on selected Psalms, including the seven penitential ones (Pss. 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143), and on the Lord’s Prayer, where he underscored human dependence on God and the desperate human need for divine grace. For the next two years Pico devised a new way of interpreting classical myths and themes by combining pagan motifs with Christian symbols. For Pico the only correct reading of ancient myths and stories was allegorical, as their true meaning was only to be understood by thorough analysis. Such a meaning, when found, would always lie within the domain of Christian theology, thus illustrating the harmony of God’s natural revelation through the Gentiles and special revelation in the Bible. The myth of Mars and Venus, for example, foreshadowed the Christian moral sentiments that love triumphs over violence and that reason should control passion. This method would greatly infl uence Florentine humanism and art and is perhaps most clearly seen in the mythological paintings of Sandro Botticelli (1444– 1510). In 1494 Pico died of a fever, when King Charles VIII of France went to Florence during his invasion of Italy and Savonarola took over governance of the city. Based on their uniting of “profane wisdom,” or classical myths, with “sacred wisdom,” or Christian teachings, Ficino, Pico, and their followers devised a Neo platonic theory of symbolism, according to which each symbol not only displays the meaning and effect of what is represented, but also becomes interchangeable with it. By sharing that which is portrayed, art and literature can move the soul to the transcending appreciation of beauty. The Florentine Neoplatonists substantiated this view through a circular relationship of beauty, love, and happiness, where beauty induces love and love generates voluptas, or pleasure. This circle was explained through both Christian theology and Greek mythology. In Christian thought love is beauty and divine, the longing God has for the salvation of all souls. This love fl ows out of God and is carried off into the world, transforming the love of God for the world into the love of a person for God; thus beauty is converted into love. The person becomes a vehicle for God’s love, loving other people for the sake of God, at which point love becomes felicity. The circle is complete when this felicity returns to its Creator in affective piety. For these reasons, the Florentine Neoplatonists regarded both humanistic learning and religion as paths to spiritual life, both culminating in the apprehension of God. See also Florence, Council of. Further reading: Cheney, Liana. Quattrocento Neoplatonism and Medici Humanism in Botticelli’s Mythological Paintings. Lanham, MA: University Press of America, 1985; DeMolen, Richard L., ed. The Meaning of the Renaissance and Reformation. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in, 1974; Kerrigan, William, and Gordon Braden. The Idea of the Renaissance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989; Lucki, Emil. History of the Renaissance, 1350–1550. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1963; Nauert, Charles G., Jr. The Age of Renaissance and Reformation. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1977. Kirk R. MacGregor 128 Florentine Neoplatonism Frankish tribe The Franks were a group of Germanic peoples who lived northeast of the northernmost part of the Rhine frontier of the Roman Empire. References to the Franks fi rst appeared in the mid-third century in Roman sources listing them among the German tribes raiding across the Roman frontier. Eventually, they settled within the Roman Empire and came to hold respected positions in both the Roman military and Roman society, and emerged as the only Germanic kingdom to outlive Rome. Perhaps more than any other barbaric people, the Franks had no common history or common ancestry. Initially, the umbrella term Frank covered a variety of groups, including Chamavi, Chattuari, Bructeri, Amsivarii, Salii, and possibly the Usipii, Tubanti, Hasi, and Chasuari. These groups maintained separate identities but at times pulled together for a common purpose, usually an offensive or defensive military action. However as a group they were so loosely connected that some historians believe it is incorrect to consider them a confederation, while others who do not wish to rule out the possibility of a confederation prefer to use the term tribal swarm. When they drew together they identifi ed themselves as Franks, a term historians believe meant the hardy, the brave, or perhaps the fi erce. Later, Frank came to mean the free. At fi rst however the Franks, as an unimportant and divided group living in the shadow of Rome, were anything but free. In the mid-third century the Franks and other German tribes launched a series of destructive raids into Roman territory, prompting an apparent increase in Roman fort building efforts. The Franks also attacked by sea, raiding the Channel coast, striking deep into Gaul via rivers, and attacking occupied Spain. Soon, however, the Franks and the Romans collaborated. The Roman general Postumus enlisted the help of one group of Franks to restore order in Gaul and drive out another group of Franks and other Germans. Internal feuds and jealousy among the Frankish factions led to shifting alliances with Rome, and over the next 200 years the Romans and Franks operated by turn as enemies and then allies. In the late third and early fourth centuries, the emperors Constantius Chlorus and Constantine the Great brutally suppressed a fl urry of Frankish rebellions, fed the barbarian leaders to wild animals in the arena, and took vast numbers of the barbarian warriors into the imperial army. Their long relationship with Rome infl uenced Frankish cultural, military, and political structures. Serving in the imperial army increased the soldier’s identity with Rome, as well as his identity as a Frank. Eventually the Salian Franks settled in the modern Netherlands, cleared the land, and began farming, providing the Romans with both a buffer between the less civilized tribes to the north and a steady source of recruits for the imperial army. Despite the harsh treatment they sometimes received from the Romans, the Franks remained loyal allies of the empire. Over the years many Franks rose to high positions within the Roman army. Loyal service brought further rewards, and in the fi fth century the empire allowed the Franks to move from buffer regions into modern Belgium, northern France, and along the lower Rhine. Throughout the fi fth century under the leadership of Chlodio, Merovich, and Childeric, the Salian Franks came to dominate the other tribes of the Frankish confederation. Childeric, in power by 463, was the fi nal Frankish commander to serve as an imperial German. Driven into exile after arguing with his Roman commander, he remained closely involved. Childeric emerged as a leader in his own right, maintaining relations with the Gallo- Roman aristocracy while negotiating to keep peace with other powers, such as the Visigothic kingdom. He often cooperated with Roman commanders and the Gallo- Roman bishops, enhancing his position with his Frankish warriors and the Roman power structure and building a secure power base for his son Clovis. The reign of Clovis (c. 481–c. 511) was critical for the development of the larger Frankish identity. Through diplomacy, treachery, and military action, he eliminated the political independence of the various Frankish subgroups and led as king of the Franks. Following several successful military campaigns under Clovis, the Franks emerged as the most powerful of the Germanic groups. His acceptance of Roman Christianity subsequently brought all the Franks in line with the Western Church and won him the unqualifi ed support of the Gallo- Roman clergy. Thereafter nearly all surviving historical sources on the Franks come from Gallo-Roman clerics, who owed their positions in the church to Clovis or his descendents, the Merovingian dynasty, and because of this infl uence they may have stressed the tribal unity of the Franks in their writing. Following these developments the meaning of Frank began to change. Gallo-Romans and other subjects of the Frankish kings adopted many Frankish customs, and the Franks adopted many of their customs and their language, Latin. The line between Frank and Gallo- Roman blurred. In addition the political control of the Frankish kings and their agents led subjects to think of themselves, at least partially, as Franks. Loyalty to the primary tribe persisted, some assert, until as late as the Frankish tribe 129 eighth century east of the Rhine, but in the kingdom of Francia, Frank indicated a political allegiance, regardless of one’s tribal origin. By the mid-eighth century most of the Gallo-Roman inhabitants of Francia called themselves Franks, and everyone from outside the kingdom called all its inhabitants Franks. The events that built the Franks from a “tribal swarm” into one essentially unifi ed kingdom, as well as the relationship they established with the Roman Church, left them in a position to emerge at the end of the transformation of the Roman world as the most powerful group in Europe. The actions taken by their leading families, the Merovingians and later the Carolingian dynasty, helped form the medieval world and strongly infl uenced the development of European culture. See also Holy Roman Empire (early). Further reading: Geary, Patrick J. Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; James, Edward. The Franks. New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1988; Lasko, Peter. The Kingdom of the Franks: North-West Europe before Charlemagne. New York: McGraw Hill Company, 1971; Schutz, Herbert. The Germanic Realms in Pre- Carolingian Europe, 400–750. Washington, D.C.: Peter Lang Publishing, 2000; Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. New York: Longman Publishing, 1994. Kevin D. Hill Frederick I (1122–1190) Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I, called Barbarossa (Italian for “Red Beard”), ruled the Holy Roman Empire from 1152 until his death in 1190 while on the Third Crusade. He was elected emperor upon the death of his uncle, Conrad III, in 1152, when the empire was in decline. He led several expeditions to Italy to regain control over the northern part of the country. In Germany he broke up the duchy of Saxony when its duke, Henry the Lion, refused to support the emperor on one of his expeditions to Italy. The duchy was divided between the emperor and the lesser nobles of the area in 1180. Germany then experienced a period of peace and prosperity. In 1189 Frederick set out on the Third Crusade, marching his army through the Balkans and Asia Minor. During 1190 while in Asia Minor, Frederick drowned in the Saleph River. Frederick I was born in 1122 and became the duke of Swabia when his father died in 1147. He accompanied his uncle, Emperor Conrad III, on the Second Crusade and took part in the aborted siege of Damascus. As Conrad neared his death he designated Frederick as his chosen successor. Thus when Conrad died in 1152 Frederick was elected emperor. The election took place in Frankfurt-am-Main on March 4, 1152. Between 1154 and 1183 he led six expeditions to Italy. On the fi rst, he restored the pope’s authority in Italy and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. During the second, he captured Milan and placed friendly governors in several other cities. He also supported the antipope and was excommunicated by Pope Alexander III. For the third expedition, Frederick planned to conquer Sicily but was stopped by a league of Italian states. His fourth expedition saw him storm Rome and place the antipope on the throne. The plague broke out in his army, forcing him to return to Germany. The fi fth expedition ended in failure when Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, refused to accompany the emperor to Italy, where the emperor’s army was defeated. After his defeat, Frederick made peace with Pope Alexander III. His last expedition to Italy saw him make a lasting peace with the Italian states and marry his son to the heiress to the Norman lands in Sicily. During this time Frederick was also working to keep the peace in Germany. Many of the German princes continued to feud with their neighbors and tried to expand their holdings. One of the more successful princes was Henry the Lion. Upon his return to Germany Frederick had Henry tried in absentia and stripped of his lands. Some of his lands went to the emperor, while the rest was divided up among various nobles. Frederick had initially been married to Adelheid of Vohburg, but he had the childless marriage annulled. He married again on June 9, 1156, this time to Beatrice of Burgundy. Because of this marriage, he gained control of the kingdom of Burgundy. They had several children, including Frederick’s successor, Henry VI. Answering the call for a new crusade Frederick assembled his army at Regensburg in May 1189. The army marched through Byzantine lands, arriving at Constantinople in the fall of 1189. Advancing through Asia Minor during the spring of 1190, he defeated the sultan of Iconium. He continued his advance and it was during this advance that he drowned. The exact circumstances of his death are not known. See also Crusades. Further reading: Dupuy, Trevor N., Curt Johnson, and David L. Bongard. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992; Henderson, Er- 130 Frederick I nest F. A History of Germany in the Middle Ages. New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1968; Munz, Peter. Frederick Barbarossa, A Study in Medieval Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969; Pacaut, Marcel. Frederick Barbarossa. Trans. by A. J. Pomerans. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970; Stubbs, William. Germany in the Early Middle Ages, 476–1250. New York: Howard Fertig, 1969. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Fujiwara clan The Fujiwara clan rose to power as a result of the coup d’etat of 645 that overthrew the Soga, which had dominated the Japanese government until then. The period between c. 857 and 1160 is called the Fujiwara period. Even after losing power it continued to monopolize positions in the imperial court at Kyoto until 1867. In 645 a nobleman named Nakatomi Katamari helped a prince, who later became Emperor Tenchi (Tenji), to overthrow the politically dominant Soga clan. In gratitude Tenchi granted a new surname to his ally, who became Fujiwara Katamari (Japanese list their surnames before personal names). He was the founder of the Fujiwara clan and assisted Tenchi in launching the Taika Reforms that continued Prince Shotoku’s policy to Sinicize Japan’s government. They sponsored fi ve embassies to China between 653 and 669 that sent young Japanese to learn about every aspect of the Chinese civilization. Katamari’s descendants continued to accumulate power in the court of Emperor Tenchi’s successors through marrying their daughters to each generation of emperors. As a result almost all emperors since that time were sons of Fujiwara women, and the few whose mothers were not Fujiwara made no headway in restoring power to the imperial family. Initially Fujiwara men were content taking important government positions, but after 858 Fujiwara Yoshifusa went a step further— he placed a grandson on the throne and became regent. This pattern of ruling through a nominal emperor continued even when the emperor became adult, because then the regent just took another title, as kampaku or civil dictator, and continued ruling. This practice continued until 1867. The Fujiwara clan proliferated into fi ve branches by the 13th century, each named after the area in Kyoto where their palaces were located. They were the Konoe, Kujo, Nijo, Ichijo, and Takatsukasa. Each branch kept a meticulous genealogy. One descendant of the Konoe house served as Japan’s prime minister at the beginning of World War II. The Fujiwara used their government positions to accumulate huge estates throughout the country and became the richest family in Japan, richer than even the imperial family. They also used their court positions to become protectors of other nobles, taking a cut of each protégé’s income. However the Fujiwara never attempted to usurp the throne. This is because of the deep reverence all Japanese felt for the emperor as descendant of the sun goddess and therefore Shinto high priest. Fujiwara power began to decline by the mid-1100s, partly because of the growing impotence of the central government. On the other hand the provincial nobility who had to gain protection by organizing armies became more powerful; they then withheld revenues meant for the central government and their Fujiwara patrons. Rivalries between different branches of the Fujiwara clan also weakened all of them. As a result two new groups rose to undermine their dominance. One group was the retired emperors (adult emperors were often induced to retire and take up monastic life in favor of their young sons, who were easily controlled by their Fujiwara maternal grandfathers or uncles), who tried to reassert power by forming a shadow government from their retirement palaces. The other group consisted of provincial nobles who were no longer content with their subservient status. In the 12th century the provincial military class banded behind the banners of two great noble houses, the Taira and Minamoto, each descended from a cadet branch of the imperial family. In two great wars in the late 1100s the Taira and Minamoto would in succession gain ascendancy and thus control of the court. In victory the Taira attempted to mimic the Fujiwara by moving to Kyoto and marrying their daughters to the emperors. But they soon succumbed to the decadent life at court and were eliminated by the Minamoto in 1185. The victorious Minamoto leader Yoritomo did not move to Kyoto but established his headquarters at a town called Kamakura, where he ruled as Seii-taishogun, or “Barbarian Quelling Generalissimo.” The Fujiwara were allowed to regain their monopoly of supplying empresses and concubines to the emperors in a court that no longer held power but retained its religious and ceremonial functions. The Fujiwara era was one of decline of central authority in Japan but also one of fl ourishing high culture, especially at the imperial court in the capital Heian (later Kyoto). Although frequent contact with China continued, the Japanese became increasingly Fujiwara clan 131 confi dent and began to experiment with innovations. Buddhism became popular throughout Japanese society, but with Japanese characteristics, assimilating elements of native Shintoism and identifying with local deities. Rejecting earlier Buddhist schools, which identifi ed with the upper classes, a Japanese monk, Ennin, returned to Japan after a lengthy stay in China in the late ninth century and popularized a school called Pure Land Buddhism. The Japanese also developed a new writing system based on simplifi ed Chinese characters used for their sound. It was called kana and was a phonetic syllabary system used for writing Japanese. Kana was popular with court ladies, who wrote a new genre of literature— novels and witty commentaries that described court life and romances between noble ladies and courtiers who no longer governed and had been reduced to social butterfl ies. The most notable works of the genre were The Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu and the Pillow Book by Sei Shonagon; both authors belonged to the Fujiwara clan. The Fujiwara clan was important in Japanese history for dominating the imperial family for many centuries. It also presided over a period that initially imitated Chinese ways and then developed into a unique Japanese culture. See also Kamakura Shogunate; Taira-Minamoto wars. Further reading: Morris, I. I. The World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1964; Sansom, G. B. A History of Japan to 1334. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur
The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit
Fénelon, François de Salignac de la Mothe- (François Fénelon) (1651–1715) educator, intellectual, bishop François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon had one of the gentle minds of the 17th century that adapted the mold of the Christian humanist to the social and intellectual world of France. Though he did not find contemporary authorities receptive to his ideas, later generations of politicians, educators, and church officials took their inspiration from his writings. He was born the 13th child of a family of venerable pedigree in Gascony. By the age of 24, he was ordained and took up parish work. Having dreamed of doing outreach work among Orthodox Christians in Greece, he instead took up a new mission of winning French Protestants back to the Catholic Church. His first project, called Convent of New Catholics, catapulted him into prominence as an educator. The convent offered first-rate education to girls from Protestant families in accordance with Fénelon’s pedagogy. His second project was to undertake direct preaching missions among the Protestants of the region, reflecting Fénelon’s feeling that persuasion was preferred to force when it came to converting souls. In 1687, his Traité de l’education des filles articulated his sentiments about the dignity of women and their rights to an education. Fénelon criticized the harsh pedagogy applied to students of his day and presented more gentle and persuasive ways of molding character, according to the mentality of each child. Among those who became his advocates were the powerful bishop, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, and several important relatives of Louis XIV. In 1689, he was chosen as the tutor of the dauphin. For the dauphin Fénelon prescribed a regimen of moral education, stressing that a great king depended on greatness of personal character. One of his texts, called Télémaque, was based on the opening books of Homer’s Odyssey, where Odysseus’s son, Telemachus, learns to take responsibility for his father’s house. Another text featured the testimonies of past heroes, meant to inspire the student to set high ideals. The effects of his pedagogical experiments were dramatic. The king’s family noticed that the lad, once spoiled and prone to temper tantrums, now became serious, selfcontrolled, and even pious. Fénelon thus became the toast of the court; by 1693, he was elected to the French Academy, and in 1695 he was named an archbishop. Fénelon’s downfall came from an unexpected source— his lifelong speculation about piety and prayer. In 1688, he had made friends with the French mystic Mme. Guyon, a widow known for her eccentricities but followed by a notable clique. Her teaching sounded suspiciously similar to a spiritual movement called Quietism, originating from Spain and condemned by the Holy See. Bossuet censured Guyon, while Fénelon stood by her. In the fateful year of 1699, Fénelon was stripped of his position as royal tutor. Appealing to the pope, Fénelon was faulted for 23 of his propositions. Then his text Télémaque was found by Louis XIV to be too critical of the French monarchy. It was well known that Fénelon had reformist views on the absolute monarchy, free trade, and a church free from Louis XIV’s and Bossuet’s controls. Fénelon retired to his diocese in disgrace. Unto his dying day, he maintained the common touch with the faithful of his region, steered clear of scandal, and was revered as a saint. His educational theory was unmatched until the time of Rousseau; had his views on the monarchy been considered, France might have been preserved from its bloody revolution 100 years later. Further reading: Janet, Paul. Fenelon: His Life and Works. New York/London: Kennikat Press, 1970. Mark F. Whitters Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain patrons of exploration Ferdinand (1452–1516) and Isabella (1451–1504) united Castile and Aragon creating modern Spain under a dual monarchy, initiated the Spanish Inquisition, conquered Granada, expelled the Moors and the Jews who would not convert to Christianity, funded Christopher Columbus, and established royal authority. Ferdinand was born at Sos, Aragon, on March 19, 1452, as the son of John II of Aragon and Navarre (1397–1479) and Juana Enriquez, his second wife. As heir to the throne of Aragon, Ferdinand became king of Sicily in 1468. He was skillful, ruthless, ambitious, selfcentered, and political in all his endeavors. Ferdinand was often deceitful in his agreements, repudiating treaties and other agreements soon after they were signed. Ferdinand married his equally ambitious, pious, but wiser cousin Isabella of Castile and León. She was born at Madrigal de las Torres in Castile on April 22, 1451, the daughter of feeble-minded King John II of Castile and León (1405–54) and Isabelle of Portugal, his strongminded second wife. Isabella had a more ethical character than Ferdinand. She inherited an extensive royal lineage from several generations of European dynasties. The couple maintained exceptionally close ties to the papacy. Isabella’s imbecilic half brother Henry IV (1425–74), also known as the Impotent, ascended the throne after their father died in 1454. Along with her younger brother, Alfonso, Isabella was brought to Henry’s court for protection and stricter supervision. Isabella became a pawn in her brother’s plans to make her future marriage economically beneficial and politically advantageous for Castile. He wanted her to marry, among others, the king of Portugal, the French dauphin, or an English prince, all of whom she firmly refused. After Alfonso’s death in 1468, Henry proclaimed the prudent and gentle Isabella his heir on September 19, 1468, when they both affixed their signatures to the Accord of Toros de Guisiando. Isabella secretly married her cousin Ferdinand at Ocaña, on October 19, 1469, without Henry’s consent. He disowned her, promptly revoked the Accord of Toros de Guisiando, and named his alleged daughter Princess Juana la Beltraneja (1462–1530) princess of Castile and by 1475 the wife of King Afonso V of Portugal (1432–81), as his heir. Juana was the illegitimate daughter of Henry’s wife and Beltrán de la Cueva. After Henry died on December 10, 1474, Isabella ascended the throne on December 13 at Segovia. Her claim was immediately contested by Juana and Afonso; the struggle became a civil war. Isabella had strong support from Aragon and her countrymen. Ferdinand defeated Juana’s forces at the Battle of Toro on March 1, 1476, and again on February 25, 1479. The Treaty of Alcaçova on September 1479 concluded the civil war. Juana entered the convent of Santa Clara of Coimtra in 1480. To solidify firmer control over Spain once they became comonarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella subdued all the resistance groups, captured the insubordinate towns and fortresses, and vanquished all rebellions against their rule. Then they proceeded to reconstruct the Cortes (Parliament), revamped the government’s administration, and produced a legal framework for Spain that granted greater power to the monarchy at the expense of the nobility, who had become dangerously powerful under previous monarchs. When Ferdinand’s father died in 1479, Ferdinand and Isabella’s union merged the two largest kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula and created 90 percent of present- day Spain. The astute Isabella insisted that there be joint rule and that she govern Castile herself. The saying “Tanto monta, monta tanto” (They are one and the same), became their motto. Isabella also insisted that both their names be placed on each royal document and that she preside at each state transaction. She also allowed their coat of arms to be united. She collected important artworks, was widely read, learned Latin after the age of 30, established schools, and supported the Franciscan order of the Poor Clares. Together they reformed the church and the monasteries in Spain, as both had become corrupt and ineffective. The couple had five children: Isabella of Aragon (1470–98), Juan of Aragon (1478–97), Juana of Castile 132 Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain (1479–1551), Maria of Aragon (1482–1517), and Catherine of Aragon (1485–1536), to whom Isabella was devoted. They all received the same classical education and were taught the basics of household duties such as sewing, making beds, and cleaning. The children were married into European royal dynasties mainly to outflank French territorial ambitions. Juan married Margaret of Austria but died within six months and left no children. Juana became insane after the death of her husband, Habsburg archduke Philip the Handsome (1478–1506). Isabella married King Afonso V of Portugal (1432–81) and then King Manuel I of Portugal (1469–1521). She died in childbirth, and her son Miguel died within two years. Maria married her brother-in-law Manuel I of Portugal after her sister’s death. At the conclusion of at least 13 years of negotiations, Catherine married Arthur Tudor, prince of Wales (1486–1502) on November 14, 1501. Arthur died six months later. After Arthur’s death, because her father had not yet completed payment of her dowry, Catherine would marry the future king Henry viii (1491–1547) on June 11, 1509. He divorced her on March 30, 1533. Ferdinand and Isabella’s grandson by Juana and Philip inherited their and Philip’s parents’ huge territorial inheritance; he would become Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1519–56). Ferdinand and Isabella believed that religious conformity was crucially important for Spain. They also realized the political and economic advantages for their monarchy and zealously instigated the Spanish Inquisition, deeming saving souls and eradicating heresy as their most sacred duty. During their reign, heterogeneous Spain had Europe’s largest Jewish population. Ferdinand and Isabella insisted that Spain become white Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain 133 Ferdinand V and Isabella I receive Christopher Columbus after his return from his first voyage. Though responsible for the golden age of exploration for Spain, the monarchs also sponsored the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal. (non-Moorish) and of pure Christian blood, or sangre limpia. On the threat of withdrawing military support from the pope Sixtus VI (1521–90), who deemed their actions as a plot to gain Jewish property, Ferdinand demanded that Spain initiate the Inquisition. After a number of arguments between Ferdinand and Sixtus, the pope issued the Papal Bull of 1478 that created the Inquisition in Seville. It then expanded throughout Spain and began a lengthy period of religious cleansing. Pope Innocent VIII (1432–92) appointed the Dominican priest Tomás de Torquemada (1420–98), Isabella’s confessor and himself a grandson of a convert, to head the Spanish Inquisition. The partially converted Jews, the Marranos, secretly maintained their Jewish cultures and customs. To force them to confess, Torquemada imposed increasingly penurious methods. He forfeited Jewish property, which conveniently financed a war against another minority in Spain. Torquemada humiliated the Marranos by forcing them to wear a sambenito, a yellow shirt containing crosses that exposed their genitals in public. Some 130,000 conversos were tried at tribunals from 1480 to 1492. Some Marranos were burned at the stake. The ruthless Torquemada staged the LaGuardia show trial in 1490 where no guilt was proved yet the victims were burned at the stake. Some 30,000 Jews were ritually murdered during the Spanish Inquisition. Ferdinand and Isabella issued the Edict of Expulsion on March 31, 1492. The Jews were commanded to leave Spain and never return. With his work done, Torquemada retired to St. Thomas monastery in Ávila, where he died in 1498. Historical debate lingers about the number of victims of the Inquisition in Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella relied greatly on the expertise of her next confessor, Cardinal Francisco Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros (1436–1517), who helped raise Spain to unprecedented predominance on the European continent. The couple gained control over the military orders of Calatrava, Alcántara, and Santiago, which greatly increased their power, wealth, and territory. Ferdinand and Isabella revived the centuries-long Reconquista. They waged a costly 10-year war against the Moors and finally conquered Granada, the last Moorish stronghold, in 1491. They triumphantly entered Granada on January 2, 1492. Isabella, more so than Ferdinand, was responsible for the horrific slaughter of the Moors who would not convert to Christianity. In 1501, Ferdinand and Isabella offered the Moors the alternative of baptism or exile; those who remained became known as Moriscos. In 1492, Pope Innocent VIII (1432–92) granted Ferdinand and Isabella the title of “Most Catholic Majesties” for spiritually unifying Spain. The Reconquista was completed. Isabella was largely responsible for initiating the golden age of exploration for Spain. She financially supported the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the New World. She had rejected his request numerous times, but when he threatened to petition funds from France she relented and Columbus sailed in August 1492. When he brought 150 natives to Spain, she bought some and gave them their freedom. Ferdinand and Isabella were strongly involved with the establishment of the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 that divided the non-Christian world overseas between Portugal and Spain. Isabella died at Medina del Campo on November 26, 1504. Ferdinand married Germaine de Foix on October 19, 1505. Ferdinand served as regent of Castile after Juana died and later for his grandson Charles V. Ferdinand also fought in lengthy Italian Wars against France. His generals conquered Naples in 1504, and in 1512 he annexed Navarre. He also joined the League of Cambrai in 1508 to thwart Venetian objectives and the Holy League in 1511 to counteract France. Ferdinand also founded universities. Ferdinand died at Midrigalejo, Spain, on January 23, 1516. He is buried beside Isabella, at the Capilla Real in Granada alongside Juan, Philip, and a grandson. See also expulsion of Jews from Spain (1492) and Portugal (1497); Tudor dynasty; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Edwards, John. The Spain of the Catholic Monarchs, 1474–1520. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000; Elliott, John H. Imperial Spain, 1469–1716. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964; Kamren, Henry A. The Spanish Inquisition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998; Liss, Peggy K. Isabel the Queen: Life and Times. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004; Roth, Cecil. The Spanish Inquisition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1964. Annette Richardson Francis de Sales (François de Sales), St. (1567–1622) prelate and writer In an age of religious division and strife, Francis de Sales (François de Sales) was a voice of reason and charity and a leader in the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Plagued by lifelong doubts about his faith, he was revered as a saintly man by both Catholics and 134 Francis de Sales (François de Sales), St. Protestants precisely when violence was the usual recourse for religious controversy. Francis’s father expected him to be either a lawyer or a military officer and raised him accordingly, sending him to the University of Paris to study rhetoric and humanities under the Jesuits and then to the Padua Law School. He was not much interested in the hidebound teachings of the Dominicans and Jesuits, consummate Scholastics who followed the old ideas of Thomas Aquinas. He found himself fascinated by the new ideas of the Protestant reformer John Calvin, who taught predestination. Struggling with doubts, he finally came to the conclusion, at age 19, that his main concern was to love God in this life and to entrust his eternal fate to the hands of this God. During Francis’s days in law school he resolved to become a priest. He became involved with the Catholic diocese of Geneva-Annecy, an area particularly hard-hit by Protestant proselytism. He was ordained in 1593, and through some papal connections was appointed provost of the diocese. Francis’s position allowed him to begin a mission to the resident Protestants. He conceived it as based on charity toward the poor, care of the sick, and evangelical preaching instead the conventional Counter- Reformation tactics of law and military force. Francis endured daily hardships of harassment, cold, violence, and threats. When offered another diocese by Henry IV, he refused, saying, “Sire, I am married; my wife is a poor woman, but I cannot leave her for a richer one.” Miracles were associated with his mission. The area, Protestant for some 60 years, largely returned to the Catholic Church within four years. Francis soon became bishop of Geneva, where his patience and mildness became proverbial. He often dared to walk the streets of the city where Calvin had his headquarters 50 years earlier. In fact he dialogued with the reformed leader and scholar Theodore Beza. Though again plagued by doubts, his philosophy was “Love will shake the walls of Geneva; by love we must invade it.” Francis produced a stream of writings that proved that the pen was mightier than the sword. Among his most famous books were Introduction to the Devout Life (1608). He also became renowned as a spiritual director, having a profound effect on the founders of two Catholic Counter-Reformation orders, later declared saints, Vincent de Paul and Jane de Chantal. Protestant King James of England and Scottish Calvinists in Aberdeen read his literature. He had a vast correspondence, perhaps sending out 20,000 letters. He suffered an agonizing death in 1622, was beatified by Pope Alexander VII only 39 years later, and was canonized by 1665. He was declared doctor of the church in 1877 partly for his irenic affects on religious dissent and patron saint of journalists and writers in 1923. Among the organizations that claim direct connection with him today are Visitation Sisters, Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales, Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, Salesians of Don Bosco, and the St. Francis de Sales Association. See also Dominicans in the Americas; Loyola, Ignatius of, and the Society of Jesus. Further reading: Bedoyere, Michael de la. Saint Maker: The Remarkable Life of Francis de Sales, Shepherd of Kings and Commoners, Sinners and Saints. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1998; Ravier, André. Francis de Sales, Sage and Saint. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. Mark F. Whitters Franciscans in the Americas The Franciscans sent the greatest number of missionaries to minister in the New World. This is quite likely due to the fact that they were the largest order in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. In 1493, there were some 22,000 friars participating in various Franciscan observances. A large number of them were in Spain. By 1517, this number had grown to 30,000, mainly due to reforms initiated by Cardinal Francisco de Cisneros in the simpler more relaxed Observant reform (which retained the name Order of Friars Minor). The Franciscan order has had a history marked by reforms and divisions. In 1517, Pope Leo X divided into two independent groups disgruntled Franciscans still unsatisfied by the medieval attempts at reform. The result was a Conventual Franciscan group (those resisting change) and the Observant group, which would be called Friars Minor. A Capuchin reform surfaced in 1528 and became an independent group by 1619 (Order Friars Minor Capuchin). Among the three groups, the Franciscans had an overwhelming majority of religious representatives in the New World. It has been suggested by historians that Franciscan missionaries, Friars Juan de la Deule and Juan de Tisin along with Father Ramón Pané, were the first members of a religious order to come to the Americas. These men accompanied Christopher Columbus in 1493 during his second expedition. They had been sent by a special Franciscans in the Americas 135 commission of the Franciscan order in response to royal instructions from the Spanish Crown aimed at bringing the natives of the Americas to Catholicism. Their initial chapel was built at Port Conception on Hispaniola, where in December of 1493 they offered Mass for the first time in the New World. A convent was built for them by Columbus at the stronghold of Santo Domingo. Pane, probably more of a contemplative, accompanied Columbus on his voyage to Puerto Rico in 1496. Pane kept very exacting records of his activities and observations of the natives that have survived to this day. The Franciscans were at the vanguard of missionary activity on the newly discovered islands. In 1502, 17 more Franciscans arrived along with the first governor of Hispaniola. They would go on to build the first convent and church (San Francisco) at Santo Domingo. Domingo became the base of operations for countless missionary expeditions to the north, south, and central continental mainland for many decades. During the next 25 years, more than 50 Franciscan missionaries attempted to evangelize the Caribbean islands, particularly Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico. Friar Juan de la Deule died while ministering to Jamaicans sometime between 1508 and 1511. In 1512, Father García de Padilla was consecrated as bishop of Santo Domingo and, two years later, another Franciscan, Juan de Quevendo, was consecrated as the first bishop of the Central American mainland at Santa Maria Darién. The eastern part of Venezuela was also established as a Franciscan apostolic mission that lasted from 1514 to 1521. Not until after 1576 were friaries founded in the province of Caracas. In the 17th century, the Capuchins attempted to evangelize in Venezuela. Francisco de Pamplona (a former military general) began work at Darién in 1650. The Capuchin houses located there refused to accept Creoles into the order. Expeditions to mexico During 1523 and 1524, two Franciscan missionary expeditions set out for Mexico from Santo Domingo. The first friars among the Mexicans were Flemish. Among them was Father Peter of Ghent (d. 1562), who spent some 40 years among the native Mesoamericans. The following year 12 more Franciscans arrived. Around 1527, a diocese was organized under the Franciscan bishop Juan de Zumárraga. At that point, some 70 Franciscan houses rapidly surfaced in Mexico and the region was raised in status to a province. Zumárraga is credited with setting up the first printing press in the New World. Publications in 12 languages were printed and distributed throughout the Americas. Education of the Indian children of Mexico became a priority and labor of love among the friars. However, there was some opposition on the part of the Spanish government in regard to the education of the natives. Most convents had schools where thousands of Mexican boys were taught to read, write, and sing. Eventually the Franciscans assisted with the development of a school for girls in Mexico City. Several colleges were also founded for the sons of tribal chiefs throughout Mexico; they became centers for further missionary activity to both South and North America. Before the end of the 16th century, friars extended missionary efforts from Guadalajara in the northwest to New Mexico in the north, northeast to the Gulf of Mexico, and south to the Yucatán, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. Beautiful churches were constructed at Huejotzingo, Tlamanalco, Huequechula, Izamal, and Cholula. Friars Pedro de Betanzos and Francisco de la Parra became experts in the Mayan language and have handed down keys to its translation. By 1569, there were some 300 Franciscan missionaries in New Spain (Mexico) alone. missions to Peru Missionary efforts to Peru were launched by Franciscans from Santo Domingo, after 1527 by Juan de los Santos, and followed by Marcos de Niza between 1531 and 1532. Earlier, Franciscans accompanied Pizarro during his conquest and exploration of the region. Evangelization progressed fairly slowly in Peru for the first 20 years due to the animosity between natives and the Spanish invaders. From Santa Cruz eight missionaries were sent out to Peru. Friar Francisco de Aragón took 12 Franciscans and traveled south to form the main trunk from which communities in Ecuador, Chile, and Bolivia grew. A center for ministry was established at Quito as well as a college. By 1549, a supervisor was sent to Lima to coordinate all Franciscans in the southern part of the continent. It was not until 1553 that Peru saw permanent Franciscan establishments. In Ecuador a Franciscan province was erected in 1565. Missionary activity to the east and south continued. During the 17th and 18th centuries, many friars were lost to martyrdom in the territories of the Ucayali and the region north of the Amazon. Franciscans count 129 friar deaths on the Ucayali alone. In 1742, most of these centers of ministry were destroyed during native uprisings. It took 50 years to restore the Franciscan missions in these areas. Attempts by Franciscans to evangelize Chile were gravely disappointing. Between 1553 and 1750, repeated hostilities between Spanish settlers and natives made activity in the region difficult. Not until Chilean independence in 1832 did the friars 136 Franciscans in the Americas resume their missionary work. In the southern part of Chile and Bolivia the Franciscans were more successful. Seven missionary colleges were established and Franciscans ministered to the people of Bolivia between the 16th and 19th centuries. They reached Paraguay in the early 1600s and Uruguay a century later. In Argentina, Paraguay, and Peru, the Franciscan missionary St. Francis Solano (1549– 1610), who was said to have had the gift of tongues (having learned numerous native languages), spent 14 years ministering to colonists and natives. He is still held in highest regard among descendants of the indigenous people of South America. franciscans in florida Franciscans arrived in Florida in 1573, eight years after the first permanent Spanish settlement. A larger influx of friars in 1587 and again in 1589 helped with the conversion of the Guale. Many of the northern tribes of Florida were urban dwellers, so the Franciscans attempted to move into their cities and live among the people. Soon a chain of missions were established along the Atlantic coast for some 250 miles. However, during Indian uprisings of 1597, five Franciscan friars were martyred. In 1612, the Franciscan province of Santa Elena, which was headquartered in Havana, Cuba, began to supervise missionary work in Florida. At its peak in 1675, some 40 friars maintained 36 missions and the bishop of Havana claimed 13,000 native souls and about 30,000 total Catholics (which might be an exaggeration) under his care. Eventually, the Franciscan missions would fall victim to the struggle between England and Spain over the territory between St. Augustine and Charleston. Slaving raids, armed conflicts, and British alliances with Native American tribes caused the Florida missions to vanish. By 1706, most Franciscan houses in Florida had ceased to function. By 1680, there were more than 60,000 Franciscan friars worldwide. This may have had to do with the growing number of friaries (2,113 in 1585 and 4,050 in 1762). There were 16 provinces in the Spanish Americas alone. By the middle of the 18th century, at least a third of all Franciscan houses and friars were in the Spanish New World. Some of this growth reflected an increase in the number of native Franciscans in the Americas, especially in the 16th century. In fact, in Mexico, Spanish friars began to constitute a thin minority by the mid-1600s. texas settlements Texas began to be settled by Franciscans while the area was still linked to New Spain. Some missionaries refer to the areas occupied by Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California as the New Kingdom of St. Francis. There was trouble in 1680; the Pueblo Revolt saw the uprising of many Native Americans, primarily in response to the denigration of their religion by the Spanish Franciscans as well as the disruption of the Pueblo economy. Under the direction of Popé, the revolt was successful, and Popé ruled from the former governor’s palace until his death in 1688. Shortly after his death, the Spanish returned, reconquering the land without bloodshed by offering clemency to the inhabitants. In 1690, permanent missions began to be founded in the area of Texas, mostly through the efforts of Father Damian Mazanet. Many Indians in Texas were open to accepting the Christian gospel. During the 1700s, some 21 Franciscan missions staffed by more than 160 friars were established in Texas and thousands of Indians embraced the faith. During the mid-1700s, many were constructed in magnificent fashion of stone; some included fortress walls. Several examples of these still survive, particularly in the area around San Antonio, Texas. After the period of Mexican independence in the early 1800s, a large number of these missions were left to ruin. While Mexico and Arizona had Franciscan visitors in the 1500s, it was not until the early 17th century that there was any permanent activity there. Father Juan de Padilla died in the region for his faith in 1542 during an early expedition. By 1628, there were 43 churches and an estimate of some 30,000 Catholics (native and Spanish) in the territories. The Franciscans were the only missionaries to minister there and it has been recorded that nearly 300 Franciscans preached in the area during the 16th and 17th centuries. California did not experience Franciscan activity until 1769. The work of Father Junípero Serra and his assistants saw the founding of 21 permanent missions extending from the initial foundation in San Diego north to San Francisco. For the next 100 years, 144 friars would labor in California, resulting in an estimated 80,000 baptisms among Native Americans and settlers. English American Missions In the English American colonies there was some isolated Franciscan activity in the late 1600s as well as some activity in French Canada in the early part of the 17th century. Between 1672 and 1699, English friars assisted the Jesuits with work in Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota. The only permanent success seems to have been in Detroit. However, even that region was unstable. In Franciscans in the Americas 137 1706, the Franciscan priest Constantine Dehalle was killed in an Indian uprising. Father Gabrielle de la Ribaude also gave his life near Joliet, on the banks of the Illinois River, in 1681. In New France (Canada) the first missionaries in the region were four French Franciscans in Quebec around 1615. They spent the 10 years ministering to the Huron and Algonquins in the regions of the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. Father Nicholas Veil was the first Franciscan to be martyred in Canada. By 1630, the British ended friar activity in most of Canada. Some work continued among the Abnaki in Nova Scotia and Arcadia until around 1633. A group of explorers led by the Franciscan Father Louis Hennepin (1640–1701) sailed from Niagara Falls down the Mississippi. Hennepin wrote several accounts of his adventures. One of the last of the formative Franciscan missionaries in Canada was Father Emanuel Crespel, whose efforts extended all the way to the Fox River in Wisconsin during the 1720s. Historical information on Franciscan activities during the 17th and 18th centuries is not as abundant as that of the 16th century formative period. Heroic tales of martyrs and founders survived in the form of oral traditions, written accounts, and records kept by the order. By the 17th century, the scope and goals of missionary and evangelical activity began to change. By then it was even more necessary to educate and catechize as well as bring European culture and ideas to the native inhabitants. Dealing with a second generation of settlers, the arrival of new Europeans, as well as the issue of intermarriage, preoccupied the friars. The mission foundations, or doctrinas, began to evolve into parishes (some were exclusively native, others were urban European, and there were many mixed communities). It was also customary to hand many of the more successful parishes and mission foundations over to diocesan secular clergy, freeing many Franciscans to attend to ministry in the more remote areas. As the 18th century progressed, growing control by the secular clergy eventually gave way to the specialization of the Franciscans in attending to new and more isolated missionary territories in addition to the establishment of missionary colleges directed at the propagation of the faith. See also Dominicans in the Americas; Jesuits in Asia. Further reading: Greenleaf, Richard. The Roman Catholic Church in Colonial Latin America. Tempe: Center for Latin American Studies, Arizona State University, 1977; McAndrew, John. The Open Air Churches in Sixteenth Century Mexico. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965; Morales, Francisco. Franciscan Presence in the Americas. Potomac, MD: Academy of American Franciscan History, 1983; Nell, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1986; Phelan, John Leddy. The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970; Rivera, Luis N. A Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of the Americas. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990; Shea, John Gilmary. The Catholic Church in Colonial Days 1521–1763. New York: John G. Shea, 1886; Williams, Eric. From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean. New York: Vintage Books, 1984. Tim Davis French East India Company The French East India Company was one of several companies created to promote Western European commercial interests in Asia, particularly in India, beginning in the 17th century. Lured by Spanish and Portuguese traders’ tales of lucrative spice exports from the Spice Islands (in present Indonesia) during the 16th century, Dutch, British, and French rulers commissioned voyages to Asia in search of economic, and subsequently, colonial opportunities. In India Europeans discovered a plethora of items for export, including cotton, silk, indigo, and later, opium, all of which generated great demand by both European and other Asian markets. France entered the Asia trading arena significantly later than Great Britain, which founded the British East India Company in 1600, and the Netherlands, which founded the Dutch East India Company (Indonesia/ Batavia) in 1602. While France attempted to cultivate trade connections with Asia in the early 17th century as well, initial expeditions failed to secure any trading posts or settlements. During the reign of King Louis XIV (1643–1715), however, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance, reorganized earlier unsuccessful trade ventures into the French East India Company (Compagnie des Indes Orientales) in 1664. Colbert sent an expedition that reached India in 1668 and built the first French factory (production center) in Surat on the western coast, and soon after another in Masulipatam on the eastern coast. In 1673, the company established its headquarters in Pondicherry, on the southeastern coast below Madras (now Chennai), and founded Chandannagar on the northeastern coast, north of Calcutta. Madras and Calcutta, along with Bombay, 138 French East India Company were Britain’s major settlements. Pondicherry eventually became a thriving port town with a population of nearly 50,000, and Chandannagar became the most important European trade center in Bengal, its commercial success rivaling that of Calcutta. While France never became the dominant European authority in the region, for more than 50 years the French East India Company made great efforts to capitalize upon the expanding demand for textiles, dyes, and other goods that could be supplied by Indian merchants. French accounts of the activities in port towns such as Surat detail the intricate steps involved in creating the fabrics, known collectively as indiennes (Indians). Particularly on the southeastern coast, Indian weaving villages generated thousands of bolts of textiles for eager European companies. Most in demand were guinee cloths (cotton longcloth, usually 35 to 50 m in length), salempores ( staple cotton cloth), and morees (cotton cloth of superior quality). Also coveted were the stunning toiles peintes (painted cloths) and toiles imprimés (printed cloths), as well as the magnificent silks and dyes. The textiles were adored not only in Europe, but also in other parts of Asia; indeed, India had engaged in Asian textile trading centuries before Europeans arrived. In the Indonesian archipelago, China, and Japan, Indian cotton was popular for its lightweight, yet sturdy qualities. In due course, the French, British, and Dutch acquired materials from India not only for their home countries, but for transport to Malacca or Java, for example, where they were traded for spices—cloves, nutmeg, mace, sugar, and pepper—crucial in Britain and Europe to preserve meats during harsh winters. By the 18th century, the French had secured agreements to provide woven products tailored to Asian buyers’ interests: they had colored, patterned handkerchiefs specially woven for particular island markets, for example, which proved a successful entrepreneurial venture. Moreover, cloths of different types played a symbolic role in rites of passage and were sought after for use in birth, marriage, and death ceremonies, and bolts of cloth were commonly given as offerings or gifts. A salient corollary to the French East India Company’s textile exchange is that its movements between Asia and Europe also supported the exchange of slaves. While the slave trade is often described as triangular, with the three corners Europe, Africa, and the Americas (the “New World”), trade between Europe and Asia also helped to sustain slavery. French ships traded European goods in Asia, where they acquired cowry shells and Indian textiles highly valued in West Africa. Traders exchanged these goods in Africa for slaves, who were sent to France’s colonies in the Americas. “The circle was completed,” notes the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, “when sugar and other goods from the Americas were loaded on board and shipped back to France.” In commencing trade with India, the French East India Company entered an already well established, complex economic system, an intricate network of production, negotiation, delivery, and distribution. Indian merchants operated large commercial fleets as well as prosperous shore-based businesses. Inland weavers and merchants worked with overland freight deliverers and brokers, who worked with shipowners and exporters. All of these agents had to negotiate with local politicians and state officials for commercial privileges. Regional and individual trading groups developed their own intra- and intercountry rules and practices as well. In order to gain access to the goods they desired, moreover, the French had to learn these rules and practices and successfully collaborate with indigenous envoys. The French were able to develop manufacturing centers in various Indian states, but cooperating with Indian middlemen sometimes proved trying. In addition to conflicts between French traders and middlemen, clashes between traders and local authorities (and between middlemen and local authorities) often impeded successful business transactions. The Dutch and the English had mastered the art of working with indigenous traders, shippers, and rulers much earlier than the French, and although their interactions were was not always seamless, they operated with that distinct advantage. In most of the towns and ports in which the French operated, there were also English and Dutch associates. Where there was a French factory, there were likely to be English and Dutch factories as well. At the peak of the Indian trade, during which the demand for Indian goods exceeded the volume weavers and other artisans could produce, the presence of several East India companies, even in the same town, did not lead to serious rivalry. As the three companies grew more competitive, however, the Dutch and particularly the English, better funded and more conversant in local business etiquette, were able to expand their factory outposts to larger industrial towns under their jurisdiction. These commercial strongholds became political enclaves, eventually enabling Great Britain to consolidate its power and control throughout India. Despite its numerous settlements, after the death of Louis XIV, the French economy faltered and by 1719, the French East India Company was nearly bankrupt. The French East India Company resumed its independence in 1723. French East India Company 139 While the British East India Company began as primarily a trading company, it increasingly became a governing power. As the British expanded not only economic but also political and colonial influence, tensions between Britain and France grew. In 1742, Joseph Dupleix was appointed governor general of all French settlements in India and dedicated himself to exerting French power. He envisioned a French empire and to this end began to interfere in local Indian politics, playing local rulers against each other for his French benefit. In French port towns, officials equipped factories for defense. The battle for supremacy led to a series of military conflicts between France and Britain, with triumph and defeat alternating between the two. In 1747, the French besieged and captured Madras. In 1751 and 1752, however, Englishman Robert Clive dislodged Dupleix’s forces in Arcot and Trichinopolgy, taking many French prisoners. In 1754, the French government, anxious to make peace, recalled Dupleix to France. During the next half-century, British forces further colonized and forcefully subjugated much of India. While several Indian ports remained under French directive, Britain became the definitive Western authority of the Indian subcontinent. Clive’s victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1757, which brought the state of Bengal under British control, is often cited as the landmark turning point of the British colonial heyday in India. Bereft of both authority and capital, Dupleix returned to the country for which he had so vigorously labored and died penniless in 1763. Despite its earlier successes in both inter- and intracontinental trade, the French East India Company never regained its former eminence. Ultimately, King Louis XV suspended the enterprise; took over its forts, ships, and other properties; and in 1769, the French East India Company essentially dissolved. See also indigo in the Americas; mercantilism; sugarcane plantations in the Americas. Further reading: Arasaratnam, S. Maritime Commerce and English Power: Southeast India, 1750–1800. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited, 1996; Furber, Holden. Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient, 1600–1800. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1976; Manning, Catherine. Fortunes a Faire: The French in Asian Trade, 1719–48. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1996; Prakash, Om. European Commercial Enterprise in Pre-Colonial India. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Shackleton, R., Jr. “The French in India.” The New Englander 43 (May 1884); Subramanian, Lakshmi, ed. The French East India Company and the Trade of the Indian Ocean: A Collection of Essays by Indrani Ray. Calcutta, India: Munshiram Manohorlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1999. Christine Su Fronde, the The Fronde (1648–53) was a civil war that took place in France during the era of Louis XIV. Although not a particularly unified movement, the Fronde was nevertheless a protest against both the power of the Crown and the perceived loss of privilege. The term fronde came from the word signifying a child’s slingshot, and a game whereby children would fling stones at the nobility. The term frondeur soon meant a person who believed in limiting monarchial power, or one who simply speaks out against the current government. Louis XIV was barely 10 years old when the revolt erupted. The Fronde itself was not directed against the boy king; rather, it was directed mostly against the policies of Cardinal Mazarin and Louis’s mother, Anne of Austria, who were at the time ruling France until Louis would come of age to rule on his own. By the time Louis XIV was born, France was in serious financial difficulties. The Thirty Years’ War (1618– 48) placed extreme demands upon the French treasury. Mazarin resorted to several tactics to raise money, including increasing taxes, selling government offices, and forcing creditors to make government loans. The three estates Society in prerevolutionary France was divided up into the Three Estates. In the first estate was the clergy, followed by the nobility in the second. Whoever was not in the first two was clearly in the third, which was the bulk of the population. While the struggle for power and authority may have caused the first two estates to hate each other intensely, they would always band together to block any attempts by the third to assert themselves. But the third estate was beginning to make strides toward improving their lot. With the discovery of the New World, and improved methods of sea travel, international trade improved the economy of Europe. Many people who were not part of the third estate tapped into the opportunities and often amassed personal fortunes greater than that of the nobility, and thus a new middle class was born. This new middle class often loaned money to kings and nobles alike, often to finance wars or expeditions. But with that came another demand from 140 Fronde, the the middle classes—political power. Mazarin was happy to provide these offices, much to the chagrin of the nobility, who believed such power was reserved to them. In May 1648, judicial officers of the parlement, a high court, were taxed. The officers met with Mazarin, refusing to pay. The officers presented Mazarin with a list of demands, which were constitutional reforms, including giving them the power to approve any new taxes. Not to be bullied, Mazarin had the leaders of the parlements arrested. Open revolt broke out in Paris in August. Since the army was engaged elsewhere, there was little choice but to release those arrested, along with an empty promise to enact reforms. As soon as this was done, Mazarin and the court fled Paris in October, taking the young Louis with them. Upon the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, ending the Thirty Years’ War, the army returned to Paris and began to fight the insurgents. Both the middle and lower classes joined in the struggle, also unhappy with the rate of taxation. But the movement was anything but unified. Throughout France, various armies were formed by local city government units, such as parlements and councils, and by social groups such as the nobility. Many of these armies fought against the Crown, while other armies fought against each other. The army began a siege of Paris by January 1649, but the number of casualties was small. By March, the Peace of Rueil was signed, which would last only until the end of the year. The battles and intrigue, however, did not cease. Princes and nobles alike still conspired to unseat Mazarin and gain more power for themselves. In January 1650, Mazarin arrested three such leaders and then turned to the army to suppress any remaining rebellion throughout the kingdom. In 1651, the prisoners were released, and the royal army managed to quell the rest of the minor revolts. Eventually, the royal court returned to Paris. Frondeurs continued to fight, although against each other, and with the royal army. Some frondeurs fashioned their own government in Paris in 1652, and Mazarin, feeling pressure from outside, once again left France. Constant infighting among the frondeurs doomed the movement, and Louis XIV was allowed to reenter Paris in October 1652. By the next year, Mazarin returned to France, and with that, the Fronde was officially over. But long term Louis XIV never trusted nobility, and upon ascending the throne, he ruled as an absolute monarch. While he may have utilized the skills of advisers, he ruled without a minister or the Estates General. Furthermore, remembering Paris as a place of violent revolt, he built the palace of Versailles, at tremendous cost to the country, and moved the seat of government there. See also absolutism, European. Further reading: Doolen, Paul Rice. The Fronde. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935; Lours, Pierre. La Fronde. Paris: A. Michel, 1961; Ranum, Orest A. The Fronde: A French Revolution, 1648–1652. New York: W. W. Norton, 1993; Sedgwich, Alexander. The Travails of Conscience: The Arnauld Family and the Ancien Regime. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935; Treasure, G. R. R. Mazarin: The Crisis of Absolutism in France. New York: Routledge, 1995. M. Newton-Matza
Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit
Fashoda crisis The Fashoda crisis of 1898 was a confrontation between the British and French over control of the Sudan. The British wanted control of the water sources of the vital Nile River upon which Egypt (which they already controlled) depended. Some British imperialists such as Cecil Rhodes also had ambitions to build a northsouth railway to traverse the African continent from the Mediterranean to South Africa. The French also dreamed of building an east-west railway from their huge empire in West Africa to East Africa. They also wanted to thwart British imperial expansion. In the 1890s a French major, Jean-Baptiste Marchand, embarked on an ambitious expedition to walk from West Africa across to the Sudan to claim the territory for the French Empire. After two years and the loss of hundreds of men, Marchand arrived at the small settlement of Fashoda on the Upper Nile and hoisted the French fl ag. At the same time, the British, led by Horatio Herbert Kitchener, had completed their conquest of northern Sudan, culminating at the Battle of Omdurman. When Kitchener heard that a European was at Fashoda, he immediately knew that Marchand had succeeded in his expedition; however, he was not about to let the French seize part of the Sudan. Kitchener took fi ve gunboats loaded with soldiers to confront Marchand, who was vastly outmanned and outgunned. Recognizing his inferior position, Marchand reluctantly agreed to defer the question of territorial rights over the Sudan to the diplomats back in London and Paris. Although there were popular demonstrations in both capitals in favor of war, diplomacy prevailed. In an 1899 negotiated settlement it was agreed that the Sudan, the largest country in Africa, would become part of the British Empire and, in return, France would receive a small compensatory territory in West Africa. See also British Empire in southern Africa. Further reading: Churchill, Winston S. The River War. London: Prion, 1899, 1997; Holt, P. M. A Modern History of the Sudan. New York: Grove Press, 1961; Sanderson, G. N. England, Europe and the Upper Nile. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965. Janice J. Terry Fenian raids Between 1866 and the 1870s a small number of Irish nationalist exiles invaded British Canada several times from the United States in hopes of forcing Britain to grant Ireland its independence. The Fenians failed; their attacks created new tensions between Canada and the United States but also sparked Canadian nationalism, helping secure support for the 1867 British North America Act that created modern Canada. In 1857 refugees from the recent Irish Famine and supporters of the Young Ireland movement met in New York City to enlist Irish immigrants to help throw off centuries of British rule. Named for an ancient Irish F hero, the Fenian Brotherhood would, by 1864, boast 10,000 members, including a women’s auxiliary. From the beginning, the Fenians were plagued with internal leadership squabbles and were denounced by most of the Irish Roman Catholic priesthood. The American Civil War, however, presented an opportunity. For years, Americans had greedily eyed British Canada. As Britain outraged the Union by deviously assisting the Confederacy, infl uential Americans called for troops to “destroy the last vestiges of British rule on the American continent, and annex Canada . . .” The United States also punished Canada by canceling a 12-year-old free-trade agreement. Canada, the Fenians decided, was the hated British Empire’s most vulnerable point. As the Civil War neared its end, Fenians recruited Irish-American Union soldiers into their own ranks. After weeks of rumors, armed Fenians in May 1866 invaded the tiny village of Fort Erie, Ontario, from a bivouac north of Buffalo and soon raised their fl ags on Canadian soil. On June 2 a hastily assembled Canadian volunteer force clashed with the Fenians at Ridgeway, losing the battle and seven of their men. Almost simultaneously, Fenians invaded eastern Canada from northern New York and Vermont, briefl y occupying several villages south of Montreal. In these and later instances, U.S. offi cials acted ambivalently to Fenian attacks staged from American soil. After Ridgeway, a U.S. warship was waiting to arrest hundreds of Fenian fi ghters as they reentered the U.S. side of Lake Erie. A week later President Andrew Johnson warned the Fenians against breaking U.S. neutrality laws. But to the extent that Irishmen had become a crucial voting bloc in the northeastern United States, politicians of both parties jostled for Fenian favor. Democrat Johnson, in a losing effort to prevent the Republican congressional sweep of 1866, canceled Fenian prosecutions and asked the Canadians to go easy on their Fenian captives, promising to return seized Fenian arms. Meanwhile, Canadian leaders, already negotiating the creation of the Dominion of Canada, made offi cial in March 1867, were looking into military inadequacies revealed at Ridgeway. Renewed Fenian attacks, near Montreal in 1870 and in Manitoba in 1871, were fairly easily put down by the reorganized and energized Canadian armed forces. These were the Fenian Brotherhood’s last serious threats to Canadian sovereignty. The cause of Irish freedom continued despite the Fenian collapse, fi nding more successful venues and leaders. As the Fenian era ended, so, too, did efforts to claim Canadian territory for the United States. The 49th parallel between the two North American nations became a peaceful border. See also Canadian Confederation. Further reading: Neidhardt, W. S. Fenianism in North America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975; Senior, Hereward. The Last Invasion of Canada: The Fenian Raids, 1866–1870. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991. Marsha E. Ackermann Ferdinand VII (1784–1833) king of Spain Ferdinand VII was one of the monarchs of Europe about whom these words by Thomas Jefferson were particularly fi tting: “I was much an enemy of monarchies before I came to Europe. I am ten thousand times more so since I have seen what they are. There is scarcely an evil known in these countries which may not be traced to their king as its source, nor a good which is not derived from the small fi bres of republicanism existing among them.” The future Ferdinand VII was excluded from any real role in the government of Spain by his father, King Charles (Carlos) IV; his mother, Queen Maria Luisa; and her lover, Manuel Godoy, who in many ways was the most powerful fi gure in the kingdom. Ferdinand’s animosity toward Godoy and his mother and father was serious. In 1807 Charles IV actually Fenian Brotherhood troops charge the retreating Queen’s Own Rifl es of Canada, during the Fenian invasion of Canada. 128 Ferdinand VII had Ferdinand arrested for a plot to overthrow him and to assassinate his mother and Godoy. In 1808 a palace revolt broke out against Godoy and his friendly policy toward Napoleon I. Godoy was neutralized and Charles IV abdicated in favor of his son. Ferdinand VII at last became king and then proceeded to throw away (at least for a time) his throne. In 1807 Napoleon sent troops through Spain to Portugal. Persuaded to meet Napoleon across the frontier in Bayonne, France, Ferdinand was immediately imprisoned. Napoleon gave Ferdinand’s crown to his brother Joseph Bonaparte, and for the next six years Ferdinand lived as a prisoner of Napoleon safely guarded in France. Napoleon apparently believed that the Spanish people would accept his brother as king with the rightful heir sitting in a French prison. When a French army invaded Spain and occupied Madrid in May 1808, a revolt broke out against the French troops, who most likely felt they were actually bringing modern liberty to a people still governed by the Inquisition. The revolt gave the British the excuse to exploit their naval supremacy. While England’s fi rst attempt ended in defeat, General Arthur Wellesley, the future duke of Wellington, landed on Spanish shores in August 1808. Wellington managed to win impressive victories against the French marshals sent to fi ght him. After Napoleon’s initial invasion of Spain from 1807 to 1808, he never returned. Yet while the Spanish people had fought the French mightily and sought the restoration of their king, they had also drunk deeply of the French ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity. When Ferdinand returned to Spain victorious, his people expected a liberal monarchy under him, not a return to the authoritarian rule of his father. However, when he returned to Spain, he abrogated the constitution of 1812 empowered by the Spanish parliament and attempted to rule as a despot. Under his rule, secret societies like the Freemasons and the Carbonari began to unify public opinion against him. In January 1820 the Spanish army offi - cer Rafael del Riego y Núñez led a successful uprising against the king. The rebellion became widespread, and the Spanish troops could not—or would not—suppress it. Thus Ferdinand VII, in order to hold onto his throne, had to accept the constitution. However, Ferdinand’s conversion to a liberal government was only a tactical move—he had no intention of governing with any limitations on his powers. Ferdinand appealed to the monarchical Holy Alliance, which had been formed to stamp out the egalitarian thought that had spread to wherever in Europe a French soldier had carried his knapsack. The Holy Alliance was the mystical creation of Czar Alexander I of Russia, who was determined after Napoleon’s ultimate defeat at Waterloo in June 1815 that no Napoleon should ever again disrupt the peace of the crowned heads of Europe. Finally, after the Congress of Verona in 1822, the restored French king Louis XVIII was given the job of crushing the forces of liberalism in Spain. This time, the French troops, royalist now, found a welcome in the reactionary sector of Spanish society. Although Ferdinand VII had promised liberal terms to his opponents, many of these foes were executed. For the rest of his reign until his death in 1833, Ferdinand governed by force of arms. See also American Revolution (1775–1783); French Revolution. Further reading: Blake, Nicholas, and Richard Lawrence. The Illustrated Companion to Nelson’s Navy. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2005; Gates, David. The Spanish Ulcer: A History of the Peninsular War. London: Pimlico, 2002; Glover, Michael. The Peninsular War, 1807–1814. New York: Penguin, 2001; Ridley, Jasper. The Freemasons. New York: Arcade, 2001; Robinson, Martin. The Battle of Trafalgar. London: Conway, 2005. John F. Murphy, Jr. fi nancial panics in North America Several fi nancial panics took place during the 19th century in America. The fi rst major fi nancial crisis happened in 1819, when widespread foreclosures, bank failures, unemployment, and a slump in agriculture and manufacturing marked the end of the economic expansion that followed the War of 1812. The nationwide depression triggered by the panic of 1819 was the fi rst widespread failure of the market economy, although the market had fl uctuated locally since the 1790s. Businesses went bankrupt when they could not pay their debts and thousands of workers lost their jobs. In Philadelphia, unemployment reached 75 percent, and 1,800 workers were imprisoned for debt. Unemployed people set up a tent city on the outskirts of Baltimore. Different schools of economic thought gave different explanations for the panic of 1819. The Austrian school theorized that the U.S. government borrowed too heavily to fi nance the War of 1812 and it caused great pressure on specie—gold and silver coin—reserves and this led to a suspension of specie payments in 1814. financial panics in North America 129 This suspension stimulated the founding of new banks and expanded the issue of new bank notes, giving the impression that the total supply of investment capital had increased. After the War of 1812, a boom, fueled by land speculation gripped the country and stimulated projects like turnpikes and farm-improvement vehicles. Most people recognized the precarious monetary situation, but the banks could not return to a nationwide specie system. There was a wave of bankruptcies, bank failures, and bank runs. Prices dropped and urban unemployment rose to lofty heights. In part, international events caused the panic of 1819. The Napoleonic Wars decimated agriculture and reduced the demand for American crops while war and revolution in the New World destroyed the precious metal supply line from Mexico and Peru to Europe. Without the international money supply base, European governments hoarded all the available specie and this in turn caused American bankers and businessmen to start issuing false banknotes and expanding credit. American bankers, inexperienced with corporate charters, promissory notes, bills of exchange, or stocks and bonds, encouraged the speculation boom during the fi rst years of the market revolution. By 1824 most of the panic had passed and the U.S. economy gradually recovered during the rest of the decade. The United States survived the panic of 1819, its fi rst experience with the ups and downs of the business cycle. PANIC OF 1837 The next signifi cant business crisis in the United States, the panic of 1837, was one of the most severe fi nancial downturns in U.S. history. Speculative fever had infected all corners of the United States, and the bubble burst on May 10, 1837, in New York City when every bank stopped payment in specie. A fi ve-year depression followed as banks failed and unemployment reached record levels. This depression, interrupted by a brief recovery from 1838 to 1839, compared in severity and scope to the Great Depression of the 1930s and its monetary confi gurations also parallel the 1930s. In both depressions many banks closed or merged, over one-quarter of them in 1837 and over one-third the number in the 1930s depression. Erratic and unwise government monetary policies played an important part in both depressions. PANIC OF 1857 The United States gradually recovered from the panic of 1837 and entered a period of prosperity and speculation, following the Mexican-American War and the discovery of gold in California in the late 1840s. Gold pouring into the American economy helped infl ate the currency and produce a sudden downturn in 1857. The August 24, 1857, collapse of the New York City branch of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company following a massive embezzlement set off the panic. After this, a series of other setbacks shook American confi - dence, including the fall of grain prices, the decision of British investors to remove funds from U.S. banks, widespread railroad failures, and the collapse of land speculation programs that depended on new rail routes. Over 5,000 businesses failed within a year and unemployment became widespread. The South was less hard hit than other regions because of the stability of the cotton market. The Tariff Act of 1857 reduced the average rate to about 20 percent and became another of the major issues that increased tensions between the North and the South. The United States did not recover from the panic of 1857 for a full year and a half and its full impact did not fade until the American Civil War. PANIC OF 1873 The end of the Civil War produced a boom in railroad construction, with 35,000 miles of new tracks laid across the country between 1866 and 1873. The railroad industry, the nation’s largest employer at the time outside of agriculture, involved much money, risk, and speculation. Jay Cooke and Company, a Philadelphia banking fi rm, was just one of many that had invested and speculated in railroads. When it closed it doors and declared bankruptcy on September 18, 1873, it helped trigger the panic of 1873. Eightynine of America’s 364 railroads went bankrupt and a total of 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875. The New York Stock Exchange closed for 10 days. By 1876 unemployment had reached 14 percent and workers suffered until the depression lifted in the spring of 1879. The end of the panic coincided with the beginning of the waves of immigration that lasted until the early 1920s. PANIC OF 1884 Speculation caused a stock market crash in 1884 that in turn caused an acute fi nancial crisis called the panic of 1884. New York national banks, with the silent backing of the U.S. Treasury Department, halted investments in the remainder of the United States and called in outstanding loans. The New York Clearing House Association bailed out banks at risk of failure, averting a larger crisis, but the investment fi rm Grant & Ward, 130 financial panics in North America Marine Bank of New York, Penn Banks of Pittsburgh, and over 10,000 other businesses failed. PANIC OF 1893 Precipitated in part by a run on the gold supply, the panic of 1893 marked a serious decline in the U.S. economy. Economic historians believe that the panic of 1893 was the worst economic crisis in American history to that point and they draw attention to several possible causes for it. Too many people tried to redeem silver notes for gold, eventually exceeding the limit for the minimum amount of gold in federal reserves and making U.S. notes for gold unredeemable. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad went bankrupt, and the Northern Pacifi c Railway, the Union Pacifi c Railroad, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad failed. The National Cordage Company, the most actively traded stock of the time, went into receivership, a series of bank failures followed, and the price of silver fell, as well as agriculture prices. A total of over 15,000 companies and 500 banks failed. At the panic’s peak, about 18 percent of the workforce was unemployed, with the largest number of jobless people concentrated in the industrial cities and mill towns. Coxey’s Army, a group of unemployed men from Ohio and Pennsylvania, marched to Washington to demand relief. In 1894 a series of strikes swept over the country, including the Pullman Strike that shut down most of the transportation system. The panic of 1893 merged into the panic of 1896, but this proved to be less serious than other panics of the era. It was caused by a drop in silver reserves and market anxiety about the effects that it would have on the gold standard. Commodities defl ation drove the stock market to new lows, a trend that did not reverse until after William McKinley became president. Stephen Williamson, associate professor of economics at Ottawa University, compared fi nancial panics in Canada with those in the United States. He concluded in part that the Canadian banking system experienced fewer panics because it was better regulated and well diversifi ed. See also Banks of the United States, First and Second; railroads in North America. Further reading: Faulker, Harold. Politics, Reform and Expansion, 1890–1900. New York: Harper & Bros., 1959; Huston, James L. The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987; Schwantes, Carlos A. Coxey’s Army, an American Odyssey. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985; Stampp, Kenneth. America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990; White, Gerald T. The United States and the Problem of Recovery after 1893. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1982. Michael J. Schroeder Finney, Charles Grandison (1792–1875) American theologian Charles Grandison Finney was one of the most prominent evangelists of the Second Great Awakening in 19th-century America. He was born on August 29, 1792, in Warren, Connecticut. When he was two years old his family moved to Hanover, New York. After graduating from Oneida Academy, Finney taught from 1808 to 1812 in the school district of Henderson, New York. In 1816 he became a clerk in the law offi ce of Judge Benjamin Wright in Adams, New York. In 1818 Finney opened his own law fi rm. In October 1821 Finney experienced religious conversion. He left his law practice and began an informal study of the Bible. In July 1824 he was ordained a Presbyterian minister. He identifi ed himself as a Congregationalist for most of his life. From 1824 to 1833 Finney led religious revivals and preached throughout the northeastern United States. He was most active in northern New York, where he was a very popular evangelist, and in particular Rochester, where he was invited to live by that city’s religious and business leaders. In 1832 Finney became the minister of the Second Free Presbyterian Church of New York City. He also helped to establish seven other Presbyterian churches in New York City. In 1835 the wealthy merchants Arthur and Lewis Tappan, who were the fi nancial sponsors of Oberlin Theological Seminary, invited him to come to the seminary and establish its theology department. Finney accepted their offer but continued to preach at his church. At Oberlin Seminary he held a number of teaching positions, including professor of systematic theology and professor of pastoral theology, as well as teaching courses in moral philosophy. Finney served as the pastor of the First Congregational Church of Oberlin and as a member of the seminary’s board of trustees from 1846 to 1851. He was elected president of Oberlin Theological Seminary in 1851, a position he held until 1865. While at the seminary, Finney founded what became known as “Oberlin Theology,” which embodied his belief that an individual Finney, Charles Grandison 131 could only attain perfection by leading a strict Christian life. His religious ideas made Oberlin Theological Seminary one of the leading religious colleges in America for almost a century. He wrote a number of important and influential theological works. In 1836 Finney’s first book, titled Sermons on Important Subjects, was published. He followed it with Lectures to Professing Christians, which was published in 1837. In 1840 a collection of his lectures was published as Skeletons of a Course of Theological Lectures. Finney’s Lectures on Systematic Theology was published in 1846. Although he began work on his autobiography, Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney, in 1867, it was not published until a year after his death. Although he resigned as president of the seminary in 1865, he continued to teach there until he was 83 years old. Finney died in August 1875 in Oberlin, Ohio. Further reading: Hambrick-Stowe, Charles E. Charles G. Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997; Perciaccante, Marianne. Calling Down Fire: Charles Grandison Finney and Revivalism in Jefferson County, New York, 1800–1840. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003; Rosell, Garth M., and Richard A. G. Dupuis. The Original Memoirs of Charles G. Finney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Gene C. Gerard Francia, José Gaspar Rodríguez (1766–1840) Paraguayan leader José Gaspar Rodríguez Francia is considered the founding father of Paraguay. During his childhood in the late colonial period, Paraguay was a backwater nation dependent upon Buenos Aires for its outlet to the sea. Because higher education did not exist, Francia attended the College of Córdoba in what is now Argentina. In 1790 Francia became a professor of theology in Asunción (the largest city in what became Paraguay). However, his increasingly radical views caused tension, so he left his position to study law. As a supporter of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others, he soon had the largest library in Asunción. Having acquired knowledge of subjects such as astronomy, philosophy, and French, Paraguayans looked at him as a wizard. By 1800, as a lawyer, he had become known as a defender of the poor. In 1809 Francia became the mayor of Asunción and supported the coup d’etat in 1810 that brought independence to Paraguay. In the new political climate, he used his diplomatic skills to secure Argentina’s recognition of Paraguay; this was an important achievement, given that many people in Buenos Aires wanted to annex Paraguay. In 1812, after resigning from the junta composed of military officers which ruled in Asunción, Francia was soon back as a chief of foreign policy. In this position, he once again thwarted Argentine designs on Paraguay. In return, he was placed in charge of half of the army and munitions available and became the single most important figure in the nascent country. To solidify his position, he called a congress of over 1,100 delegates—the first representative assembly chosen by universal male suffrage—which resulted in the formal declaration of a republic in October 1814. From this time onward, Francia held supreme power until his death in 1840. He was influenced by French utopian philosophers who opposed private property and idealized communes. As a result, Francia ruled a self-designated community of people. The state seized private property to assist the peasants. Fully 877 families received homesteads from the land of their masters. Other measures taken to benefit the poor included very low taxes as a result of fines and confiscations levied on the Spanish elite. The confiscation of foreign properties was used to establish animal breeding farms that were so successful that livestock was given to peasants. Other innovations followed, such as importing machines used in shipbuilding and textiles. Agriculture was centrally planned so that it became more productive and diversified. Personally frugal and honest, Francia left the country richer than he inherited it, including leaving behind seven years of unspent public money. Other policies were more controversial. Although Francia advocated power in the hands of the people, he suppressed free speech. People who dissented from Francia within the country were often tortured and disappeared without trial. Anyone suspected of anti-Francian sentiments would be sent to a detention camp where he or she would be shackled in dungeons and denied health care. Europeans were forbidden to marry other Europeans so that they would marry local people of mixed or Indian ancestry. Francia harbored resentment against Europeans, many of whom had snubbed him due to his “impure blood.” Anyone who attempted to leave Paraguay could be executed. People who entered Paraguay had to remain there for the rest of their lives. In his vendetta against the elite, Paraguay’s borders were sealed, 132 Francia, José Gaspar Rodríguez and tobacco production was largely removed from elite control. In his hostility against the elite, Francia often took draconian measures. In 1824 all people born in Spain were arrested and placed in jail for 18 months. They were released only after they paid a large indemnity that eliminated their dominant role in Paraguay’s economy. Francia banned religious orders, closed his old seminary, forced monks and priests to swear fealty to the state, confi scated church property, subjected clerics to state courts, and placed church fi nances under civil control. Francia was a bit more relaxed with the underprivileged. Criminals whose crimes he blamed on the unjust behavior of the elite and the church were treated quite leniently, with murderers put to work on public projects. Asylum was given to political refugees from other countries. His foreign policy was wise and prudent. He managed to remain on good terms with both Argentina and Brazil and was not above pitting them against each other. He conducted a private trade so that Paraguay received just enough foreign goods, including armaments, to remain free from pressure. When he died in 1840 Francia left a mixed legacy. Signifi cant economic development had taken place, Paraguay’s independence had been secured, and the power of the elite had been broken. On the other hand, political expression had been stifl ed, and Paraguay’s populace was made extremely passive and thus vulnerable to rule by dictatorship. See also Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance); socialism. Further reading: Bourne, Richard. Political Leaders of Latin America. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1969; Graham, R. B. Cunningham. Portrait of a Dictator. London: William Heineman, 1933; Pendle, George. Paraguay, a Riverside Nation, 3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1967; Warren, Harris G. Paraguay, an Informal History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1946; White, Richard Alan. Paraguay’s Autonomous Revolution, 1810–1840. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1978. Norman C. Rothman Franco-Prussian War and the Treaty of Frankfurt The Franco-Prussian War lasted from 1870 until 1871 and started after the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the North German Federation and its became increasingly anti-French. When the Prussians tried to put a Hohenzollern on the throne of Spain, Napoleon III, worried about having to fi ght Germany on two fronts, decided to declare war on the Germans on July 15, 1870. Although the French started the war, they quickly lost the initiative, with the Germans rapidly mobilizing and gaining diplomatic support from the states of south Germany: Bavaria, Baden, and Württemberg. On July 31 three massive and well-equipped German armies totaling 380,000 troops massed on the French border. The First Army, led by General Karl F. von Steinmetz, had 60,000 men located between Saarbrücken and Trier. The Second Army was under the command of Prince Friedrich Karl with 175,000 men between Bingen and Mannheim, and the Third Army (145,000 men), under Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, was located between Landau and Germersheim. All these were offi cially under the command of King Wilhelm I; the fi eld commander was General Moltke. Most units were under Prussian command, although troops from allied parts of Germany fought alongside Prussians in most engagements. In addition, the Prussians also held back 95,000 soldiers in case the Austrians decided to intervene in the war. Facing them, the French had eight separate army corps, with a total troop strength of 224,000, but with many units below strength and some lacking adequate provisions. They were, however, inspired by the French people who cheered them with the cry “On to Berlin.” The French, trying to force the pace of the war at the behest of Emperor Napoleon III, invaded Germany, with the fi rst battle being fought at Saarbrücken on August 2. Battles quickly followed at Weissenburg (August 4), Fröschwiller (August 6), and Spichern (August 6), leaving the French forces in disarray and the Prussians able to advance toward Paris. On August 12 Napoleon relinquished command of the French army, and the Prussians pushed back the French forces. The major battle was fought at Sedan on September 1, 1870. General Auguste Ducrot had taken command of the French forces from Patrice MacMahon but had been forced back to the Belgian border with 200,000 German soldiers facing him. The French had only 120,000 men. At the start of the battle, the French cavalry was destroyed by the German infantry, and 426 German guns bombarded the French forces throughout the day. However, French machine guns were able to hold off the German infantry attack. General Emmanuel Franco-Prussian War and the Treaty of Frankfurt 133 de Wimpffen, the new French commander, urged Napoleon III to lead his forces, most of whom had retreated into the fort at Sedan. The French emperor declined the offer of a fi nal charge and surrendered to the Prussian king. Wimpffen then surrendered the rest of the French forces. This left the Germans able to march on Paris. With the news of the defeat at Sedan, the people in Paris overthrew the Second Empire of Napoleon III and proclaimed the establishment of the Third Republic. The authorities in Paris mobilized militia and hastily gathered together an army and threw up fortifi cations around the French capital. The German commander Moltke decided not to attack the heavily fortifi ed city and involve his soldiers in street fi ghting. Instead, on September 19, the siege of Paris began. The Prussian king, William, established headquarters at Versailles. The French tried to disrupt the German lines of communication and at the same time raise another army in the Loire Valley and start a new war from the base of the provisional French government at Tours. On October 27, the Germans captured the city of Metz, with the surrender of the French commander Marshal Bazaine and his army of 173,000. This did not stop the French army from the Loire launching several attacks to relieve Paris. The French managed a few victories, such as at the Battle of Coulmiers on November 9, when they defeated a Bavarian Army Corps, forcing them to withdraw from the city of Orléans. On December 2–4 after a bitter battle around the city, the Germans retook Orléans. On January 5, 1871, the Germans started bombarding Paris, and on January 10–12 managed to repulse the French at Le Mans. At the Battle of Belfort on January 15–17, the only major French frontier force that had not been captured fell. One of the volunteers fi ghting for France at that battle was the Italian patriotic leader Giuseppe Garibaldi. The French sued for a cease-fi re on January 26, surrendering two days later. The terms of the Convention of Versailles on January 28 did not include the disarmament of the Paris National Guard and, as a result, some Parisians tried to resist in the Paris Commune. The Germans eventually marched into Paris on March 1, and on May 10, the Treaty of Frankfurt was signed between the French and the Germans. The French were forced to cede Alsace and northwestern Lorraine to Germany and pay an indemnity of 5 billion francs, a German army of occupation remaining until the indemnity was paid. The defeat was a humiliating one for the French, causing the collapse of the Second Empire, the creation of a French republic, and also the emergence of the modern German state, with King Wilhelm I of Prussia having been proclaimed the emperor of Germany on January 18, 1871. This quick victory would also encourage German actions at the outbreak of World War I when they believed their greater effi - ciency, mobility, and generalship would deliver them a relatively easy victory. See also Algeria under French rule; German unifi - cation, wars of. Further reading: Horne, Alistair. The Fall of Paris: The Siege and the Commune, 1870–71. London: Macmillan, 1965; Howard, Michael. The Franco-Prussian War. London: Methuen, 1981; Wawro, Geoffrey. The Franco-Prussian War: the German Conquest of France in 1870–1871. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Justin Corfi eld Franklin, Benjamin (1706–1790) American printer, scientist, statesman Benjamin Franklin was the ultimate American fi gure of the Enlightenment. Renowned on both sides of the Atlantic, he used his enormous energy and talents for philosophy, politics, and diplomacy in service to the new United States and was involved in every aspect of its successful separation from the British Empire. Born in colonial Boston, youngest son of English immigrant candlemaker Josiah Franklin, Benjamin began a lifelong career as printer and publisher as an apprentice to James, his older brother. Benjamin decamped to Philadelphia at age 17 in search of greater intellectual and religious independence. Despite later long absences in Europe, Philadelphia became Franklin’s lifelong home. There he and Deborah Read raised their family, and there he returned to live his fi nal years among old friends and young admirers. In 1732, the year of George Washington’s birth, Franklin launched the fi rst number of his immensely successful Poor Richard’s Almanack, which would appear annually through 1759. A compendium of weather lore, scientifi c observations, and advice for right living, the almanack helped Franklin achieve fi nancial success, allowing him to “retire” to science and public service in 1748. As “Poor Richard,” Franklin also spread enlightenment ideas about politics and virtue in an easily understandable form. By age 30, Franklin was embarked on a political career, serving as Pennsylvania’s postmaster, assembly 134 Franklin, Benjamin member, and agent in London. Franklin used his contacts and the persuasive powers of his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, to enrich Philadelphia’s civic life, spearheading the creation of a lending library, volunteer fi re company, and hospital for the city’s poor. Beyond Philadelphia, Franklin soon became internationally known as the experimenter and explainer of electricity and inventor of the protective lightning rod. His discoveries won him membership in Britain’s Royal Society. In an age before scientifi c specialization, his curiosity was not limited to electricity. He made important fi ndings in astronomy, meteorology, and zoology; encouraged others, including inventors of the steam engine and steamship; documented the dangers of lead poisoning; and, in his 80s, collaborated on Noah Webster’s project of spelling reform. Franklin’s enduring importance, however, stems from his crucial role in the process by which 13 of Britain’s North American colonies gained independence. As early as 1747 when Philadelphia faced possible attack from French freebooters and their Indian allies, Franklin challenged Quaker Pennsylvania’s offi cial pacifi sm to muster an armed militia to protect his colony. As the Seven Years’/French and Indian War loomed in 1754, Franklin’s “Albany Plan of Union” proposed a colonywide Grand Council to improve relations with Indian tribes and foster better coordination among the colonies themselves. The plan failed, but it presaged initiatives leading to the Revolution. Historians have shown that Franklin loved England and was deeply committed to the British Empire, of which he saw the colonies as an integral and, eventually, an economically dominant part. But as Britain’s government, in the years following its 1763 war victory, made clear that Americans would never win political or social equality with the mother country, Franklin became a committed separationist. In 1762 Franklin had pulled strings to effect the appointment of his eldest child, William, as royal governor of New Jersey. In 1775 the elder Franklin broke off relations with his son (who remained loyal to the Crown) and did not communicate with him for a decade. Franklin spent most of the politically agitated period between 1764 and the 1775 outbreak of the American Revolution in London, fruitlessly trying to persuade Parliament that its taxes and other colonial policies would lead to a rupture. Even the death of his wife, Deborah, in December 1774 did not bring him home, but Franklin arrived on American shores in time to help Thomas Paine publish and distribute his fi ery pro-independence pamphlet, Common Sense, and to be Pennsylvania’s delegate to the Second Continental Congress, where he sat on a committee working with Thomas Jefferson on the Declaration of Independence. At the same time, Franklin helped shape a democratic constitution for the State of Pennsylvania. As the war intensifi ed, Franklin sailed for France on a mission that would make possible the United States’s ultimate victory. Although his French was not fl uent, Franklin was already hugely admired there, and his patient and subtle diplomacy eventually gained major military and monetary aid for the emerging United States. When, with France’s assistance, the war’s end came into view in 1781, Franklin became the central member of a treaty-negotiating team that included John Adams and John Jay. The resulting Treaty of Paris was signed in September 1783. Gladly relieved of his offi cial duties abroad, Franklin returned to Philadelphia in time to participate in the Constitutional Convention in summer 1787. Although the now elderly statesman did not play a central role in the major debates of that contentious proceeding, Franklin’s eminence and daily participation helped to keep the delegates on track. Benjamin Franklin is the only founding father whose signature appears on the Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris, and U.S. Constitution. In 1790, as he lay dying at his Philadelphia home, Franklin took up a fi nal cause. Joining with others, he petitioned the U.S. government to bring an end to slavery. Franklin had once himself owned at least two slaves; having helped make a revolution, this man who Franklin, Benjamin 135 Benjamin Franklin was renowned on both sides of the Atlantic for his talents in philosophy, politics, diplomacy, and scientifi c invention. never stopped questioning, investigating, or evolving had, in his fi nal chapter, cast a fi nal vote for freedom. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas. Further reading: Isaacson, Walter. Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003; Morgan, Edmund S. Benjamin Franklin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Marsha E. Ackermann Franz Josef (Francis Joseph) (1830–1916) Austro-Hungarian ruler The emperor of Austria, the apostolic king of Hungary, and the king of Bohemia from 1848 until 1916, Franz Josef I presided over the long decline of the Austro- Hungarian Empire, leading his nation into World War I. His reign of 68 years was only surpassed in Europe by those of Louis XIV of France and John II, prince of Liechtenstein. Franz Josef was born on August 18, 1830, at the Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, the capital of the empire. His grandfather was the late emperor Franz; his father was Archduke Franz; and his uncle was the ruling emperor Ferdinand. His mother, Princess Sophie of Bavaria, oversaw his education. The young Franz Josef started his training in the Austrian army at the age of 13 with his appointment as colonel. For much of the rest of his life, he was to wear the uniform of a junior offi cer. In 1848, following the resignation of Chancellor Prince Metternich, Franz Josef was appointed governor of Bohemia but never took up the position, being sent to Italy, where he fought alongside Field Marshal Radetzky. In July 1848 the Austrians defeated the Italians at the Battle of Custozza, and the Habsburg court returned to Vienna but were forced to evacuate it again in September, this time moving to Olmütz in Moravia. By this time, Prince Windischgrätz who controlled the army in Bohemia, favored replacing Emperor Ferdinand I with his nephew Prince Franz Josef. Ferdinand I abdicated on December 2, and when his brother Franz Karl renounced the throne the crown passed to Franz Karl’s eldest son, Franz Josef, who used both names in his title to try to hark back to Emperor Josef (Joseph) II. It was during these relocations that Prince Franz Josef met Elisabeth, his cousin, who would later became his wife. At 18, Franz Josef was guided by Prince Felix Schwarzenberg, the new prime minister, and a constitution was granted in 1849. It was a troubled time for the Austrian royal house, with the Hungarians rebelling against the Habsburg central authority, trying to get their “ancient liberties” restored. King Charles Albert of Sardinia/Savoy used the Austrian preoccupation with Hungary as a good time to attack Austria, starting in March 1849. Radetzky defeated the Savoyards at the Battle of Novara and with Russian aid was able to crush the Hungarian revolt. With the end of that crisis, Franz Josef suspended the 1849 constitution and appointed Alexander Bach, the former minister of the interior, to preside over a restoration of absolutist centralism. Prince Schwarzenberg’s main aim was to try to stop the German Federation being controlled by Prussia. He wanted Austria to remain as the major power in central Europe, and Franz Josef certainly went along with this. However, Schwarzenberg died in 1852, and unable to fi nd anybody of his caliber, the emperor took over the day-to-day running of the country, with Karl Ferdinand Count von Buol-Schauenstein as prime minister, a position he held until 1859. Alexander Bach worked on domestic affairs, and Count Grünne on military affairs. Initially, the main problem that Franz Josef faced was how to deal with Russia, which had supported the Austrians over the Hungarian rebellion in 1848. The Russians expected that this was the start of a new alliance. When the Crimean War broke out, the Austrians had to decide whether they would support their new ally, Russia, or their old one, France. Franz Josef fi nally decided that neutrality was the best course, but the Russians, not trusting him, left an army on the Galician front. This meant that at the Peace of Paris at the end of the Crimean War, the Russians felt the Austrians had been ungrateful, yet the British and the French also felt that they could not trust them. Three years after the Crimean War ended, the Austro-Sardinian War of 1859 broke out, with Count Cavour of Sardinia/Savoy managing to get support from Napoleon III of France. Franz Josef personally led the Austrian soldiers at the Battle of Solferino and saw his army break and fl ee. This resulted in the Austrians losing control of Lombardy. The reunifi cation of Italy presented Franz Josef with a strong neighbor to the south. The next war was with Prussia in 1866. At the Battle of Königgrätz (Sadowa), the large Prussian army defeated an equally large Austrian and Saxon army; there were heavy casualties on both sides, but superior Prussian weaponry carried the day. With Italy supporting the Prussians at the peace agreement at the end of the war, the Austrians lost control of Venice. 136 Franz Josef (Francis Joseph) LESS POWERFUL AUSTRIA At the end of the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Franz Josef found himself ruling a far less powerful Austria, without its Italian possessions and with Prussia dominating Germany. Franz Josef had wanted to modernize and centralize his possessions but was forced to agree to the exact opposite. The restructuring of the Habsburg possessions led to the establishment of the Austrian-Hungarian dualism in 1867. The Hungarian Compromise of 1867 saw Franz Josef as emperor of Austria and king of Hungary, although Hungary would retain its own parliament and prime minister. Thus the Habsburg Empire would become the dual monarchy of Austro-Hungary, which would share the person of the emperor, the army, a joint minister for foreign affairs, and some fi nancial offi ces. For most of the rest of Franz Josef’s reign, the Austro- Hungarian Empire was in decline. Franz Josef’s mother had wanted him to marry Helene, the eldest daughter of her sister Ludovika. However, he fell in love with Helene’s younger sister Elisabeth, who was only 16, and they were married in 1854. Their fi rst child, Sophie, died as an infant, and their only son, Crown Prince Rudolf, died in 1889, allegedly by suicide, in the Mayerling incident. Both of these were viewed at the time as divine retribution, although Franz Josef’s other daughters did outlive him. Franz Josef’s younger brother, Maximilian, became emperor of Mexico and was deposed and executed by fi ring squad there in 1867. Franz Josef, although he had separated from her, was attached to his wife, and when she was stabbed to death in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1898 by an Italian anarchist, he never recovered. The defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 ensured that Austria could never manage to gain control of the German states that merged with Prussia to form the German Empire. Trying to reposition Austria, from the late 1880s, Franz Josef slowly moved Austro-Hungary into an alliance with Germany and oversaw the occupation of Bosnia Herzegovina from 1878 and its annexation in 1908. This was to involve the Austro-Hungarian Empire heavily in the Balkans, bringing about the enmity of Russia, which had strong cultural ties with the Serbs. During the latter part of his reign, Franz Josef did manage to modernize much of the empire. The opera house was built in Vienna starting in 1861, and the new Burgtheater, university, parliament building, town hall, and museums of art and natural history were all built. In 1873 an economic crisis hit most of Europe, but Austria survived relatively well, being able to show the splendor of the Habsburg lands in the World Exhibition at the Prater in Vienna. The railway network was heavily expanded, the telegraph system built, and in 1879 the fi rst telephone system was installed. Franz Josef was persuaded to install a telephone on his desk at the Hofburg in Vienna, but it remained a fashion accessory, and there is little evidence of him actually using it until 1914. ROAD TO WAR Franz Josef never liked his nephew and heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and was particularly angered by the younger man’s marriage to Countess Sophie Chotek, who was not from a royal house. Franz Ferdinand had insisted on the marriage, which had to be a morganatic one, with Sophie to become a consort rather than queen, when Franz Ferdinand succeeded his uncle. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, and Franz Josef was persuaded to declare war on Serbia on July 28, leading Austria into war. The Austrian army was a multinational and multilingual one, refl ecting the diversity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Led by Austrians, it included Hungarians, Bosnians, Croatians, Czechs, Poles, and Slovaks. Although Franz Josef knew that it would not be an easy victory, his generals felt that it would not take long to capture Serbia. They were able to defeat the Serbian armies and capture the country, but the soldiers quickly succumbed in guerrilla attacks and to disease. Franz Josef died on November 21, 1916, in the middle of World War I. He was succeeded by his nephew Karl I. Further reading: Crankshaw, Edward. The Fall of the House of Hapsburg. New York: Viking Press, 1966; ———. The Hapsburgs. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971; Glaise von Horstenau, Edmund. The Collapse of the Austro- Hungarian Empire. London: J.M. Dent, 1930; May, Arthur J. The Habsburg Monarchy 1867–1914. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951; Taylor, A. J. P. The Habsburg Monarchy 1815–1918. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1948. Justin Corfi eld Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712–1786) king of Prussia Born on January 24, 1712, Frederick II the Great of Prussia became king in 1740 on the death of his father, Frederick William I. Frederick William I had fi rmly established Prussia as a garrison state, which led some Frederick the Great of Prussia 137 historians to say that Prussia was an army with a state, not a state with an army. Obsessed with forming an elite infantry for the heaviest fi ghting, he sent agents to kidnap the tallest men in Europe to be conscripted into his Potsdam Guards Regiment. As a father, Frederick William I was a brute. Wishing him to be in the military, he despised the prince’s love for music and culture and sometimes beat him with a cane. (In spite of his father’s disapproval, Frederick became one of the most distinguished fl ute players of his generation.) When Frederick as a youth tried to escape from his father’s tyranny with his young friend Lieutenant Hans von Katte in 1730, both were arrested. Frederick was imprisoned and forced to undergo the horror of seeing Katte executed, most likely beheaded, from his cell window. When Frederick became king in 1740, one of his fi rst acts was to disband the Potsdam Guards Regiment. Still, Frederick continued his father’s transformation of Prussia into a garrison state and commented that “for the world rested not so fi rmly on the shoulders of Atlas as the Prussian State on the shoulders of the Army.” Frederick was dissatisfi ed with the condition of the army left by his father and was determined to take it in a new direction. Frederick William I’s predilection for height in his soldiers led to a heavy cavalry of extremely large men on large horses, hardly suited for the role of shock action in battle that Frederick the Great envisioned for them. Although the Holy Roman Empire was considered powerful, Frederick sensed weakness and planned an attack. The Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI had only his daughter Maria Theresa to succeed him. However, the ancient Salic law prevented a female from becoming ruler. Charles VI attempted to circumvent the law to enable his daughter to succeed him on the throne, but in October 1740 Charles VI died. Although the Austrians and Hungarians, the empire’s main troops and Frederick’s opponents, were taken by surprise by the Prussian advance, they soon recovered and fought back. Finally, after fi ve charges, the Austrian and Hungarian cavalry refused to continue advancing into the storm of Prussian musketry. Frederick’s fi rst battle had ended in victory. Although he considered negotiating a settlement with Austria, Frederick decided he could gain more by war. On May 17, 1742, he defeated an Austrian army at Chotusitz. The loss at Chotusitz led to the Austrians signing the Treaty of Berlin in July 1742, effectively ceding mineral-rich Silesia to the Prussians. However, when the French were defeated at the Battle of Dettingen by a coalition of British, Austrian, and Hanoverian troops, Frederick feared that if France were defeated, Austria would turn all its resources against Prussia. Frederick launched another attack on the Austrians while they were occupied with the French and Bavarians. In August 1744 Frederick captured Prague and threatened Austria itself. Maria Theresa was forced to sign the Treaty of Dresden on Christmas Day, 1745. The confl ict between the French and British would continue until the entire confl ict of the War of the Austrian Succession would end in 1748 with the Treaty of Aixla- Chapelle. Maria Theresa was bitter over Austria’s defeat and planned revenge against Frederick and Prussia. She implemented what was known as the diplomatic revolution of the 18th century. She forged an alliance between the ancient enemies, Austria and the France of King Louis XV, and added Russia and Czarina Elizabeth. The express purpose of the diplomatic revolution was the destruction of Prussia. Upon learning of these negotiations, Frederick made an alliance with his former enemy, George II of Great Britain, thus completely changing the diplomatic landscape of Europe that had existed during the War of the Austrian Succession. FIRST DEADLY BLOW Frederick was determined to deal the first deadly blow, creating a hallmark of German strategy that would be upheld throughout World War I and World War II. On October 1, 1756, Frederick won his first battle against the Austrians. The struggle with Austria was part of the much wider European conflict, which has become known as the Seven Years’ War. The Seven Years’ War, much more than the War of the Austrian Succession, became a war of survival for Frederick, beset as he was on all sides by the French, Austrians, and Russians. At the Battles of Prague and Köln, Frederick was bloodily defeated by the Austrians. Soon after, the French army under Marshal Soubise invaded Prussia and met Frederick at Rossbach on November 5, 1757. Rossbach would become perhaps Frederick’s classic victory when, after being hidden by a hill, Frederick’s commander brought his cavalry smashing into the French army, thoroughly defeating Soubise in one of the most decisive battles of the 18th century. With the French effectively out of the war at least for a time, Frederick then turned swiftly on the Austrians, savagely defeating them at Leuthen precisely a 138 Frederick the Great of Prussia month after Rossbach. The failure of his enemies to coordinate their offensives brought victory to Frederick, who by now was called by his troops Alte Fritz, or “Old Fritz.” The Russians attacked again in the summer of 1758, and Frederick’s victory over them was a brutal battle of attrition. Frederick had no real chance to recover when the indefatigable Austrian marshal von Daun sought another battle. The two old enemies met at Hochkirk on October 14, 1758, and, once again, Daun defeated Frederick in a hard-fought battle. The Seven Years’ War now entered its fi nal and climactic phase. Frederick fought three of his most hotly contested battles in 1759, as the strain of war now began to affect him and his army. In spite of all his efforts, desertions climbed. On August 12 at Kunersdorf, Frederick barely escaped capture when he was defeated by the Austrians and Russians. But the Russians did not follow up on his defeat, and he struck again. He chose Leignitz on August 15, 1760, to decisively defeat the Austrian marshal Loudon during a rare night attack. By 1761 both sides were beginning to feel the strain of fi ve years of war. The year 1762 fi nally brought the war to a close. George II died, and his son George III decided offi - cially to end the costly subsidies to Frederick. Czarina Elizabeth of Russia had died, and her son Czar Peter II was an ardent admirer of Frederick. Frederick seized the change in the political climate, and in July and October 1762, he won two more battles against the Austrians in spite of the war weariness affecting his troops. With Czar Peter wanting peace with Frederick, Maria Theresa reluctantly agreed to end the war. On February 15, 1763, Austria signed the Treaty of Hubertusberg with Frederick, bringing the war to an end. Silesia’s vast mineral wealth was permanently ceded to Prussia. Frederick took part in the fi rst partition of Poland with Austria and Russia in 1772 and became involved in the brief War of the Bavarian Succession in 1778, but otherwise lived in peace at his palace at Sans Souci. During the periods of peace, Frederick enjoyed participating in the culture of his time. Between 1750 and 1755 he hosted the French philosopher Francois-Marie Arouet, better known to the world as Voltaire. Frederick the Great took seriously the Enlightenment’s view of the philosopher-king who looked after the welfare of his subjects. A truly enlightened despot (see enlightened despotism), Frederick moved swiftly toward Prussia’s recovery from the years of war. In 1765 alone Frederick rebuilt almost 15,000 houses. Frederick died on the morning of August 17, 1786. He left Prussia the strongest military state in Europe at the end of the Seven Years’ War. Yet his zealous efforts at rebuilding the state and its economy after the war, as much as his genius at warfare, earned for him the fi tting title of Frederick the Great. Further reading: Anderson, M. S. Europe in the Eighteenth Century 1713–1789: General History of Europe Series. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2000; Duffy, Christopher. Frederick the Great: A Military Life. London: Routledge, 1988; ———. Army of Frederick the Great. Chicago: Emperor’s Press; 1996; Haythornthwaite, Philip. Frederick The Great’s Army. Botley, UK: Osprey, 1991; Marston, Daniel. The Seven Years’ War. Botley, UK: Osprey, 2001. John F. Murphy, Jr. Freemasonry in North and Spanish America The specifi c origins of Freemasonry cannot be determined with clarity. Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, and, because of the secrecy of its rituals and the infl uence of its members, is thought by some to be either subversive or bent on world domination. There do not appear to have been any permanent lodges or Masonic fraternities in America until the Grand Lodge of London was established in 1717. English Masons then turned their eyes to the colonies, establishing the fi rst provincial Grand Master to govern and control the initiation and granting of degrees in American territories in 1730. The fi rst American lodges were founded in Boston and Philadelphia and were of the York (American) rite. The York rite consists of 13 degrees, 10 above the “blue,” or required three of Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason. The higher 10 are grouped into three divisions: Royal Arch Masons, Royal and Select Masters, and Knights Templar. The York rite would dominate Freemasonry in the Americas until the latter part of the 19th century. Freemasons were important to the growth of the United States, as York rite lodges were easily formed, even in frontier areas, and provided important social and fraternal benefi ts to members. The United States was unique, however, in that it did not have one overarching Masonic governing body; there was no grand lodge for the United States. Instead, each state Freemasonry in North and Spanish America 139 had its own grand lodge, exercising complete control and authority over the territory within its jurisdiction. There was an attempt to establish a general (national) grand lodge after the American Revolution, but it failed when George Washington turned down the job of general grand master. While there were some minorities to be found in individual lodges, African Americans founded their own Masonic organization, the Prince Hall lodges, named after their founder. Along with the Christian Church, the Prince Hall lodges would grow in importance during the 19th century and provide crucial avenues of mutual support and interstate connections. Freemasons in the United States almost disappeared during the 1820s and 1830s in response to the disappearance, and probable murder, of Henry Morgan. Morgan had attempted in 1826 to publish an exposé of Masonic activities and rituals in New York but disappeared after being removed from prison by known Freemasons. The public outcry resulted in the formation of the Anti-Masonic political party and also forced the closure of numerous lodges throughout the states. Some states saw all of their lodges close within the next decade. The furor would not last, however, and by the time of the American Civil War, the Freemasons had regained their infl uence. The American Civil War would provide new challenges, however, as most southern lodges withdrew from fellowship with northern lodges, declaring them un-Masonic. While there have been many stories told of kindnesses shown on the battlefi eld between Masonic enemies, there is little doubt that the Masons back home, in their meetings, felt little love for the Masons on the other side of the war. This newfound tension helps to explain the rise of Scottish rite Freemasonry in the United States. This rite had 33 degrees (as opposed to the York rite’s 13) and was more infl uenced by French Freemasonry of the Grand Orient lodge than by the English model. The Scottish Rite was fi lled with more pageantry than the York and because of the greater number of degrees required more members before higher degrees could be granted. While it had been established in the United States in the early 1800s, it did not rise to prominence until after the Civil War, thanks to the work of Albert Pike. His books, particularly the Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, provided a new way for Freemasons to join together, and many York rite lodges either converted to the Scottish rite or joined with them. In addition to the Scottish rite, the years after the American Civil War saw an explosion of other fraternal organizations: the Elks, Grotto, Shriners, and the Order of the Eastern Star (for women), as well as groups for children. The history of Freemasonry in Mexico and South America is more diffi cult to separate from the politics of the time. Spain showed a great deal of hostility to Freemasonry, as it was often connected with revolutionary movements in Europe and often expressed anticlerical positions. This ensured that Freemasonry in Spanish colonies would often be limited and oppressed, ironically making it a revolutionary force. Many revolutionary leaders were members of the Lautaro lodge—Spanish Freemasonry. However, there can be little doubt that some of the more famous revolutionaries—Carlos María de Alvear in Argentina, José de San Martín in Chile, and José Morelos in Mexico were masons. The pageantry of Scottish rite Freemasonry became prevalent during the 19th century and dominates the South American landscape of Freemasonry to the present day. Further reading: Bullock, Steven C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730–1840. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996; Dumenil, Lynn. Freemasonry and American Culture, 1880–1930. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984; Jeffers, H. Paul. Freemasons. New York: Citadel Press, 2005; Ridley, Jasper. The Freemasons. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2001; Weisberger, R. William, Wallace McLeod, and S. Brent Morris, eds. Freemasonry on Both Sides of the Atlantic. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Jason A. Mead French and Indian wars See Seven Years’/French and Indian War (1754–1763). French Equatorial Africa French Equatorial Africa was formed as an administrative unit of the French empire in Africa in 1910. Of its three regions, Chad was the most important. Currently, Chad is not only confronted by a civil war but also by the fi ghting in Sudan to the east. The French conquest of what would become Equatorial Africa began around 1897, when France was beginning to expand south of its North African colonies of Algeria and Tunisia. Although considered part of French North Africa, Morocco would not offi cially 140 French and Indian wars become a French area of control until the Algeciras Conference in 1906 gave France virtually complete dominance of the country. At the same time, France attempted to claim territory as far as the Nile River, which precipitated the Fashoda crisis with Great Britain. On September 2, 1898, British General Sir Herbert Horatio Kitchener defeated the last major Mahdist forces in the Sudan in the Battle of Omdurman, putting the Sudan under British control. Taking advantage of the long British preoccupation with the Sudan, beginning with the revolt of Muhammad Ahmad Abdullah, the self-styled Mahdi, or Rightly Guided One, in 1883, France had hoped to expand its equatorial holdings straight across from Chad to Darfur in the Sudan and on to the Nile. No sooner had Kitchener defeated the Mahdists at Omdurman than he traveled up the Nile to where Marchand had planted the French fl ag at Fashoda. Meeting on September 18, 1898, Marchand and Kitchener established a cordial relationship, deciding to let the home governments in Paris and London resolve the problem. In the end, Marchand retreated, to full military honors from the British. In Chad, the French discovered a complex mix of tribes and religions, with Muslims predominating in the north, while in the south, native, or animist, religions predominated, as well as some Christianity. Tribes like the Fulani had their own imperial traditions, and the establishment of French control was diffi cult. The current Chadian capital of N’Djamena was founded in 1900 as Fort Lamy. Much of the history of French imperialism in the Middle Congo and Ubangi-Shari began with the explorer Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza. On September 10, 1880, Brazza signed a treaty with King Makoko of Teke, whose territory occupied a strategic position in the Congo River basin. France’s claims to the Congo were hotly debated by King Leopold II of Belgium. Finally, at the Congress of Berlin, which was held from November 1884 to February 1885, the fate of much of Africa was decided under the chairmanship of imperial Germany’s chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who was also intent on carving out a German empire in Africa. Belgium and King Leopold II controlled the Congo Free State. In honor of his contributions, the capital of the French Congo was named after Brazza: Brazzaville. De Brazza became the most important colonial administrator in French Equatorial Africa. In April 1886 he was named commissaire-general for both the French Congo and Gabon, whose territory had been formally recognized as under French jurisdiction at the Berlin Congress. In 1839, while France was still conquering Algeria (it had moved into Algeria in 1830), the fi rst treaty had been signed between Gabon and France. The government in Paris was anxious to bring riches out of the French colony differently then Leopold, who acted barbarously to the native Africans. Brazza had a genuine feeling of responsibility for the people now under his administration and refused to submit them to the barbarities of Leopold’s paramilitary administration, where hands and feet were cut off for the least infraction of laws. Tens of thousands died to profi t Leopold and his consortium of investors. When Brazza refused to employ the methods used by the Belgians, he was removed from his command. In 1900 the French government took over the system of concession companies completely, by which time Leopold had wrung his wealth from the Belgian Congo. Soon the French were using the same brutal methods that the Belgians had used. In 1905, in the face of stories of atrocities coming from the French Congo, Brazza was asked to return. His investigation led to the convictions of two Frenchmen for the murder of two natives. They both received only fi ve years in prison. Nevertheless, Brazza had served France to the best of his ability. On his return to France, he died on September 14, 1905. While the French government preferred to bury the results of his fi ndings in its attempt to keep seeking riches in Equatorial Africa, the Africans did not forget his devotion to the French “civilizing mission,” the rationale the French gave for the growth of their empire. Even now, after the end of the French empire in Africa, each October 3, a celebration is held in Brazzaville to mark his foundation of the city. See also Fashoda crisis. Further reading: Davidson, Basil. Africa in History. New York: Collier, 1968; Jordan, David. The History of The French Foreign Legion from 1831 to the Present Day. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 2005. John F. Murphy, Jr. French Indochina The French had interests in what was to become Indochina as far back as 1787 when the Treaty of Versailles French Indochina 141 was signed between Nguyen Anh, the pretender to the Vietnamese throne, and France. It allowed for Pigneau de Behaine, the French bishop of Adran, to support Nguyen Anh, who was trying to take over Vietnam, in return for Nguyen Anh’s promising to give the French a privileged trading status should he come to power. He also granted commercial and missionary rights to the French, as well as control over the central Vietnamese city of Danang and the island of Poulo Condore off the southern coast of Vietnam. With the French Revolution taking place in 1789, the French were unable to fulfi ll their commitments. However, in 1802 the forces of Nguyen Anh won control of Vietnam and centralized power around the imperial city of Hue in central Vietnam. Five years after Nguyen Anh’s victory, the Vietnamese expanded their lands by establishing a protectorate over Cambodia. However, the king of Cambodia, Ang Duong, was keen on Cambodia becoming independent of its two more powerful neighbors, Thailand to the west and Vietnam to the east, and sought help from the British in Singapore. When that failed, he enlisted the help of the French. In 1863 the French established a protectorate over Cambodia. The French had also been active in southern Vietnam and, after the Battle of Ky Hoa near Saigon (modern-day Ho Chi Minh City), the Treaty of Saigon in 1862 resulted in the Vietnamese ceding three provinces in southern Vietnam to France. The remaining provinces of southern Vietnam were conquered by the French in 1867. By the end of the French Second Empire in 1870, the French were in control of southern Vietnam and all of Cambodia. The Philaster Treaty of 1874 confi rmed French sovereignty over the whole of Cochin China. The French then decided to expand their control over the rest of Vietnam. In 1882 a French army captain Henri Rivière decided to attack Hanoi. He managed to storm the citadel of Hanoi but was killed the following year. However, this did not stop French advances, and the Harmand Treaty of 1883 established a French protectorate over both northern Vietnam, known as Tonkin, and central Vietnam, known as Annam. This was confi rmed in the Patenôtre Treaty of 1884. Three years later, in 1887, the Indochinese Union was established over Vietnam and Cambodia, with Laos joining in 1893. From November 16, 1887, when the Indochinese Union was established, the French ruled through a governor-general based in Saigon, capital of Cochin China. There were residents in Laos and Cambodia, a resident-superior in Annam, and a resident-superior in Tonkin, who ruled with the support of the regent, and took instructions from the resident-superior in Annam. The Vietnamese imperial family continued to live in the imperial palace at Hue, but they were quickly deprived of any power. In July 1885 the French demanded that Emperor Ton That Thuyet resign or be deposed and when the Emperor refused to countenance this, the French, in a show of force, surrounded the imperial palace with over 1,000 soldiers, and the French commander, General Roussel de Courcy, demanded an audience with the emperor. Ton That Thuyet overestimated his own strength and sent out soldiers to attack the French. These were easily repulsed, and the French invaded the imperial palace, which they sacked. As well as looting it, the French also destroyed the imperial library, where scrolls and documents dating back to medieval times were burned. SAVE THE EMPEROR In July 1885 the new emperor, Ham Nghi, issued an appeal called Can Vuong (“Save the Emperor”) urging the wealthy to give their money, the strong their might, and the poor their bodies to defend Vietnam from the French. Three days later the emperor fl ed from Hue with Ton That Thuyet and some close advisers. From their jungle stronghold in what is now Laos, Ham Nghi’s supporters formed the Can Vuong movement. The French responded in September 1885 by deposing the emperor and replacing him with his brother Dong Khanh. Ham Nghi was eventually captured in November 1888 after being betrayed by Hmong mountaineers, and Ton That Thuyet escaped to China. The French executed all members of the Can Vuong movement whom they captured, except Ham Nghi, who was sent into exile in French Algeria, where he remained until his death in Algiers on January 4, 1943. In Cambodia, King Norodom I, who had accepted the French but then became nervous about having given them too much power, died in 1904 and was replaced by his brother King Sisowath, who was more pro-French. In Laos, there was a token French presence, with the French residents-superior working alongside King Sakkarin and, after his death in 1904, King Sisavang Vong. French rule barely affected many of the peasants in the countryside throughout Indochina, whose main interactions with the French were taxation. However, gradually, many peasants were encouraged to work in plantations, which the French established throughout Vietnam and in eastern Cambodia. These centered on the rubber industry and other cash crops. Plantation life 142 French Indochina was hard but promised, initially at any rate, guaranteed supplies of food, particularly important as Vietnam did experience a number of famines. Gradually, these plantation companies and mining companies came to dominate the export economy of Indochina, with the emergence of business enterprises such as the Companie du Cambodge. The major impact of the French was in the cities, especially Saigon. Prior to the establishment of French rule, Saigon had been a small port. Under the French it rose to be an important trading hub, joining up with the nearby Chinese area, Cholon, to form what was to become Saigon-Cholon. The French built sections of what is now central Ho Chi Minh City, with the center of French society being in rue Catinat, where French rubber planters and their families would meet with colonial offi cials, businessmen, and wealthy Chinese and Vietnamese entrepreneurs and middlemen. In Hue, the north bank of the city was dominated by the imperial palace, so the French established their city on the opposite side of the Pearl River. In Hanoi, the French enlarged the city, with their quarter to the south of the citadel and the old city. Similarly, in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and in Vientiane and Luang Prabang, in Laos, the French added their own quarters. COLONIAL EDUCATION In terms of education, the French provision of education in Cochin China was adequate, at least when compared to other colonial powers, but apart from an institute for tropical medicine in Hanoi, its contribution to the education of the people of Indochina was woeful. By 1945, there were only two high schools in the whole of Cambodia; in Laos, European-style education was nonexistent. Many boys from the Cambodian and Laotian elites attended Lycée Chasseloup-Laubat in Saigon. Some wealthy Vietnamese and scholarship winners studied in France, along with a handful of Cambodians. Western-style medical care was only available in major cities and largely restricted to the small European populations and the local wealthy elite. There were protests against French colonial rule. Initially these were largely revolts by people loyal to the rulers, such as that of Ham Nghi in 1885, or the Poukombo and Si Votha uprisings in Cambodia, the fi rst led by a monk who claimed to be from the Cambodian royal family and the latter led by a brother of the king of Cambodia. Together with an earlier rebellion by another monk, Assoa, who also claimed royal heritage, they show a distinct theme of rebels having or claiming to be members of the royal family, with some peasants keen to follow them as royal pretenders, viewing them as the only way they could envisage an end to French rule. None of these rebellions was successful. There had been limited political freedoms in Cochin China, and by the fi rst part of the 20th century there were a range of legal political parties. Most of the modern nationalist ideas in Vietnam come from the intellectual Phan Boi Chau, who founded the Vietnamese Restoration Society in 1912. As well as political turmoil, there were occasions of farce such as when French adventurer Marie Mayréna proclaimed himself King Marie I of Sedang, issuing medals and postage stamps to support his claim of a kingdom in the highlands of Vietnam. He eventually settled on the Malayan island of Tioman, where he died soon afterward. Certainly he also drew the focus of world attention on French Indochina during the 1880s and early 1890s. Further reading: Corfi eld, Justin, and Laura Summers. Historical Dictionary of Cambodia. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2003; Hickey, Gerald Cannon. Kingdom in the Morning Mist: Mayréna in the Highlands of Vietnam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988; Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam. New York: Viking Press, 1983; Tully, John. France on the Mekong: A History of the Protectorate in Cambodia 1863–1953. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002. Justin Corfi eld French Revolution The American Revolution inspired many people around the world in the ideas of democracy and this was certainly true of France, which had sent over many soldiers to fi ght in the Americas and had helped subsidize the war. In fact, it was the crisis in the royal fi nances, partly because of the money paid in the American War of Independence, that resulted in the series of events that led to the French Revolution. Louis XVI had become king in 1774, and until 1776, his comptroller-general of fi nances was Anne- Robert-Jacques Turgot. In 1777 Jacques Necker was appointed as director-general of fi nances, and he tried to change the French taxation system to make it more uniform. This involved eroding the power of some of the law courts, which preserved aristocratic privileges. Necker was, however, undermined by the nobles, who were anxious to retain their status of not paying taxes, French Revolution 143 and he was forced from offi ce. Charles-Alexandre de Calonne became comptroller-general of fi nances in 1783, and his aim was not to have any austerity drives nor reign in expenditure but to spend more to encourage the economy and also increase the confi dence of potential creditors in the stability of the French fi nancial system. However, Calonne realized that this would not work in the long term and what was needed was a new taxation system. REFORMATION AND CONSTITUTION The new taxation system would be a universal land tax that would replace all other taxes. To get this approved, it was necessary to have it supported by the Assembly of Notables. The assembly was convened in 1787 but refused to accept this, and Calonne was soon replaced by the leader of the assembly, Étienne-Charles Loménie de Brienne. Brienne, however, quickly came to see the merit in Calonne’s proposals and put his ideas to the king. The Paris Parlément and the 14 provincial parléments liked many of the administrative reforms but baulked at the idea of a universal land tax. This left the government with the only option open to itself, the calling of the Estates General, which had last met in 1614, and have that body approve the tax reforms. The Paris Parlément called for the Estates General to have the same “forms of 1614” when it last met, which involved equal numbers of representatives of the three “estates.” The fi rst estate was the clergy, the second estate was the nobility, and the third estate was the middle class and peasants. With the three bodies voting “by order,” it was possible for the fi rst two to outvote the third. There were protests, and it was decided that there would be twice as many representatives of the third estate as each of the other two. This led to debate over whether the members should actually all vote “by head,” whereby the decision would be carried when a majority of the elected representatives supported a decision. It was decided to leave that decision to the assembly, which convened at Versailles on May 5, 1789. Many members of the third estate decided to change the whole system by turning themselves into a “National Assembly of the People.” Louis XVI reacted by closing the Salles des États, where the assembly was meeting, and the members then convened at a nearby indoor tennis court, where they swore the Tennis Court Oath on June 20, 1789, whereby they undertook not to leave until France had a constitution. In this move they were joined by a majority of the clergy and also 47 nobles. THE BASTILLE The military arrived to try to restore the king’s authority, but, on July 9, the National Assembly changed itself into the National Constituent Assembly, intent on introducing a new written constitution. The king decided to dismiss Necker, who had tried to push through his administrative reforms, and many people in Paris thought that the king was about to take control. To forestall this, large crowds started arming themselves and decided to try to take charge of the supplies of gunpowder held at the Invalides, which they could then deny to the royal troops. Some of the crowd wore a red, white, and blue cockade in their hats, and this quickly became popular with the revolutionaries and the demonstrators in coming years. When they got to the Invalides they found the gunpowder had been transferred to the Bastille and were convinced that the king was plotting a coup d’état. On the following day, July 14, the crowds started surging around the Bastille and three city deputies were admitted. One of them, Thuriot de la Rosière, requested that the governor, the marquis de Launay, draw back his cannons and not antagonize the crowd, and then let the crowds in. De Launay pulled back his cannon but would not allow the crowds in. By noon the crowds had swelled, and the fi rst drawbridge was let down, but the second remained up. As the crowd advanced into the courtyard, some soldiers fi red to try to protect the second drawbridge. At 3 p.m., de Launay at last agreed to lower the drawbridge, and he and his 114 soldiers were then taken prisoner. De Launay was killed, along with seven soldiers, as the Bastille was sacked and the seven prisoners inside were released. The Bastille had represented royal power and despotism as many political prisoners had been held there in previous centuries. It was later demolished, and many people, including numbers of foreigners, collected bricks as souvenirs. DEMONSTRATIONS AND UNREST By this time there was widespread unrest and civil commotion throughout Paris and, indeed, around the rest of the country. On August 4 the National Constituent Assembly passed what became known as the “August Decrees,” which ended all the special privileges for nobles, clergy, cities, towns, provinces, and guilds. On August 26 the assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which, like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was a statement of intent rather than law. 144 French Revolution The king had managed to get through most of this untouched, and many Parisians thought that the main problem was that the king was being badly advised in Versailles and ought to move to Paris. To achieve this, on October 5, a crowd of people from Paris, including large numbers of working women, formed what became the Women’s March on Versailles. They gathered outside the Hôtel de Ville in Paris initially to demonstrate against the increasing price of bread. Gradually, they were persuaded to petition the king himself, and they set off for Versailles, accompanied by marquis de Lafayette, leading the National Guard. They were angered by stories of banquets held at Versailles, such as the one four days earlier for the royal guards, and on reaching the palace at Versailles, some of their number forced their way into the king’s apartments, killing two of his guards. The king was fi nally persuaded to appear at the balcony and address the crowd to calm them down. This did reduce the tensions, but when Queen Marie Antoinette appeared there were hoots, and it seemed that some of the crowd might open fi re at her. As the queen tried to withdraw, Lafayette, seizing the moment, then kissed her hand. The people cheered and the king agreed that he and his family would move to Paris. On October 6, 1789, the king left Versailles for Paris, with the Constituent Assembly also moving to the French capital. By this time there were thousands of national guards to keep order. In Paris, reforms continued with the replacing of the provinces of France with the 83 départements, which were uniformly administered and all approximately of the same size and population. The Roman Catholic Church was also stripped of much of its power and wealth. On November 1789 the lands owned by the church in France were nationalized, and in February 1790 the religious orders had been suppressed. By July 1790 all that remained of the church was made, by the civil constitution, an extension of the French state. Pope Pius VI remained silent initially, but in March 1791 he condemned the civil constitution and the other changes; he was later also to condemn the execution of Louis XVI. THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM On July 14, 1790, on the fi rst anniversary of the fall of the Bastille, the Festival of the Declaration was held at the Champ-de-Mars, with the people present swearing an oath of loyalty “to the nation, the law and the king.” Led by Lafayette, the people swore the oath “we swear to be ever faithful to the nation, the law and the king.” Even the king swore the oath, and Marie Antoinette held her son out for all the crowd to see. There were then chants of “Vive le roi, vive la reine, vive le dauphin” (“Long live the king, long live the queen, long live the crown prince”). The French tricolor fl ag was unveiled, with 40,000 spectators cheering. FLIGHT OF THE KING The increasing power of the National Constituent Assembly meant that factions started to form, and in France some areas introduced more radical reforms, while others sought to restrict them. The emerging powers were members of the Jacobin Club and the Girondins, the former being extremely radical in their ideas, the latter more moderate. Sensing what might happen, many nobles and other wealthy Frenchmen started to leave the country. The National Constituent Assembly decided to legislate against these émigrés by seizing their property. As tensions escalated, Louis XVI fl ed Paris. Together with his family, he took part in a plot organized by Count Axel Fersen, a Swedish diplomat and close personal friend of the queen, and early in the morning of June 20, 1791, the royal family fl ed their residence at the Tuileries dressed as servants with some of their servants dressed as nobles. They managed to get as far as Varennes, close to where Austrian soldiers were based, the queen being Austrian. However, the escape attempt failed because the king, anxious to travel with his family, needed a large coach rather than the two smaller (and faster) ones that Fersen had wanted. Furthermore, some people started to stare at the coach as it went past, and the king, without thinking, started to wave at people who cheered him, and it soon became obvious to all who he was. The coach in which they were traveling was stopped, and, on June 22, the king and the royal family were brought back to Paris surrounded by 6,000 national guardsmen. The Constituent Assembly made out that the king had been kidnapped, but most realized what had happened. The king was suspended from his position, and he and his wife were held under guard. The situation for the king became worse when Leopold II, the Holy Roman Emperor (and brother of Marie Antoinette), King Frederick William ii of Prussia, and Charles-Phillipe, comte d’Artois, the younger brother of Louis XVI, issued the Declaration of Pilnitz in which they demanded the liberty of Louis XVI and the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly or they would invade France to achieve their will. This changed the situation dramatically, and when Leopold II died on March 1, 1792, the French decided to French Revolution 145 declare war on Austria, which took place on April 20. The Prussians then siding with the Austrians sent their soldiers into France but were stopped by the French at the Battle of Valmy. THE REPUBLIC The king was in an increasingly diffi cult position because to say anything other than urging people to fi ght the Austrians and the Prussians was tantamount to treason. On August 10, 1792, large numbers of people charged into the Tuileries, where Louis XVI and his family were held. They overwhelmed the Swiss guards who were there, killing many of them, and the newly established Paris Commune took over control of much of the city. They sent men into the prisons, where some 1,400 people were summarily tried and executed; these became known as the September massacres. The Assembly was unable to do anything, but a National Convention was formed that proclaimed itself the de facto government of France on September 20, abolishing the monarchy on the next day, and declaring France a republic. This date later became the start of Year 1 of the French Revolutionary Calendar. The French rallied to support the Convention and many were angered by the Brunswick Declaration by which the Austrians and Prussians threatened retaliation if Louis XVI was injured. On December 21 “Louis Capet, until now king of France,” was arraigned before the Convention. After his trial, on January 17, Louis XVI was sentenced to death by guillotine for “conspiracy against the public liberty and the general safety,” only by a small majority. He was executed four days later; his last words “I die innocent, I forgive my enemies. May my blood be useful to France; may it appease the anger of God.” His widow, Marie Antoinette, was executed on October 16, and their eldest son, who became in royalist eyes Louis XVII, died while in prison. This left the younger brothers of Louis XVI—Louis, comte de Provence (later Louis XVIII), and Charles, comte d’Artois (later Charles X), as the royalist claimants to the throne. Both had managed to leave France before the Revolution. THE REIGN OF TERROR At this time the Committee of Public Safety, set up by the Convention, came to be controlled by a lawyer and Jacobin radical named Maximilien Robespierre. He unleashed what became known as the Reign of Terror, in which some 18,000 people were executed, mostly by the guillotine, for counterrevolutionary activities. Many of those killed were people who had supported the initial revolution but who felt that Robespierre had gone too far. Included in those who were executed were many Girondins and also Philippe Égalité, formerly the duke of Orléans, who had even voted for the death of Louis XVI, his fi rst cousin. Georges-Jacques Danton, one of the great revolutionary leaders, was also denounced and executed. A great orator, he had been a longtime opponent of Robespierre. Many people tried to escape to England, Spain, Switzerland, or Germany, accounts captured in novels such as A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens and the Scarlet Pimpernel books of Baroness Orczy. The reign of terror reached its peak on October 24, with the start of the use of the revolutionary calendar, back-dated to September 20 of the previous year. Just over a fortnight later, on November 10, Notre-Dame Cathedral was turned into the Temple of Reason, with Lady Liberty replacing the Virgin Mary on some of the altars. To change the internal dynamics of the cathedral, a stage set from the Opéra was placed in the transept of the cathedral, in the center of which was a model of a mountain with the classical image of philosophy mounted on it. A young actress, with a white robe and red bonnet and armed with the spear of knowledge, then passed down the aisle with the crowds chanting “Thou, Holy Liberty, come dwell in this temple, be the goddess of the French.” It was not long afterward that over 2,000 other churches in France were also “transformed” into Temples of Reason. In May 1794 an inscription was added to the front of Notre-Dame: “The French people 146 French Revolution A reproduction of a painting shows Maximilien Robespierre being interrogated before being executed on July 27, 1794. recognize the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul,” and “Temple of Reason” was then changed to become the “Temple of the Supreme Being.” THE END OF THE TERROR Eventually Robespierre went too far. He had been involved in the execution of many moderate Jacobins, and on July 27, 1794, in the Thermidorian Reaction, named after the French revolutionary month in which it happened, Robespierre and his leading aide, Louis- Antoine de Saint-Just, were both arrested and executed. A new government was then introduced. Known as the Directory, it consisted of a small group of fi ve, similar to a political cabinet, who were chosen each year by the Conseil des Anciens (Council of Elders) made up of 250 senators, and the Conseil des Cinq-Cents (Council of the Five Hundred), made up of 500 representatives. It was the fi rst bicameral legislature in French history and did much to calm the tensions that had arisen while Robes pierre was in power. The Directory restored a semblance of law and order and also allowed many émigrés to return. They were able to successfully combat military threats from the Austrians and the Prussians and also internal revolts in the Vendée region in coastal west-central France. When the British attacked Toulon in the south of France, an artillery commander, Napoleon Bonaparte, was able to encourage the French soldiers to eject the invaders. Bonaparte then was involved in the invasion of northern Italy and buoyed with his success there, where he defeated the Austrians and their allies, he went on his expedition to Egypt. Although his forces on land managed to defeat the Turks and the Mamluks, the British under Horatio Nelson destroyed his fl eet at Aboukir Bay. Soon afterward Napoleon left to return to France, where he became part of a plot to overthrow the Directory that took place on November 9, 1799 (18th Brumaire of the Year VIII), when he staged his coup of 18 Brumaire, seizing power and establishing the consulate, rule by three people, which eventually saw him becoming consul for life and, in 1804, emperor. See also Napoleon III; Napoleonic conquest of Egypt. Further reading: Burley, Peter. Witness to the Revolution: British & American Despatches from France 1788–94. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989; Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution. New York: The Modern Library; Cobb, Richard C. The Police and the People: French Popular Protest 1789–1820. London: Oxford University Press, 1970; Kelly, Linda. Women of the French Revolution. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1987; Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989; Thompson, J. M. Leaders of the French Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Justin Corfi eld Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835–1901) Meiji Restoration educator As an author and educator, Fukuzawa Yukichi was probably one of the most important nongovernment Japanese fi gures from the Meiji Restoration, which followed the overthrow of the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1868. Fukuzawa wanted Japan to embrace many Western ideas in order to make the country stronger and wrote more than 100 books explaining his ideas. Fukuzawa was born on January 10, 1835, at Buzen, Japan, the younger son of a lower samurai. His father’s family had been recently impoverished, but he was able to go to school in Nagasaki, where he studied Western ideas called rangaku (“Dutch learning”). Although the ideas were no longer solely Dutch, the concept had arisen because the Dutch had, for many years, been the only Europeans who were able to visit Japan. As a result of this, Fukuzawa went on some of the fi rst Japanese missions to the West, which took place in 1860 and in 1862. The initial idea had been that the shogun should send envoys overseas, and Fukuzawa offered his services to Admiral Kimura Yoshitake. The 1860 mission was the fi rst Japanese delegation to the United States, and it set sail for San Francisco. On arrival, Fukuzawa bought a copy of Webster’s Dictionary, which was to form the basis of his study of English. It helped him produce a Japanese-English dictionary, his fi rst book. Japan’s 1862 mission went to Europe, and by this time Fukuzawa was the interpreter, accompanying the delegation to Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Prussia. On his return his book Seiyo jijo (Conditions in the West) was published and became an instant best seller because of its simple but detailed explanations of the political situation in Europe and the United States. He would visit the United States again in 1867, going to Washington, D.C., and New York. In Japan, Fukuzawa started writing prolifi cally, public speaking, and entering debating competitions. His championing of many Western ideas led to some hatred from conservatives, and there were a few attempts on his life. Fukuzawa wrote more than 100 books. Seventeen of them form the Gakumon no Susume (An Fukuzawa Yukichi 147 encouragement of learning), which was published between 1872 and 1876. His most famous work was Bunmeiron no Gairyaku (An outline of the theory of civilization), which was published in 1875. In this book he argued that “civilization is relative to time and circumstance.” As a result, a comparison of civilizations over a long time period was not as important as a comparative study of them at a particular snapshot in time. He was a strong supporter of parliamentary government, access to education for everyone, women’s rights, and other causes championed in the West. These ideas were regularly expressed in Meiroku Zasshi (Meiji six magazine), which Fukuzawa helped to publish. With the Meiji Restoration, he founded Keio Gijuku, which became Keio University in 1890. In 1882 Fukuzawa founded a newspaper called Jiji shimpo (Current events). It became one of Japan’s most important political newspapers and was read by many liberal politicians, quite a number of whom also contributed articles. These included men like Ito Hirobumi, Inoue Kaoru, and Okuma Shigenobu. During the 1890s, Fukuzawa wrote his autobiography, which was published in English in 1934. In it he spoke of his great support for the Meiji government abolishing feudal privileges and also saw Japan’s victory in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95, which gave Japan the status of a great power, as one of his happiest moments. However, this did lead to criticism of him as an imperialist and a supporter of Japanese expansionism. In reality, Fukuzawa’s support for the war was because he deplored the living conditions in China at the time, with foot-binding, cruel punishments, and some areas suffering from famine. He felt that Japanese knowledge could contribute to improving the lot of the poor in China and would also serve as a counterweight to the Western imperial powers that had established treaty ports throughout China. He was also critical of the unequal treaties forced on China by the colonial powers and thought that Japan, embracing modernity, would be able to prevent this system from spreading. Furthermore, he genuinely believed that the progressive Japanese would be able to improve the living conditions of the peasants in Korea. Much of his interest in Korea came from a period when he invited some young Korean noblemen to Japan, and they misbehaved dreadfully, even trying to steal the school safe. With these men as the potential future leaders of the country, he despaired of what might happen if the Japanese were not able to exert themselves as a modernizing infl uence. Fukuzawa died on February 3, 1901, in Tokyo. His house in Nakatsu remains a major tourist attraction in that city and is a nationally designated cultural asset. A statue of him stands in the grounds of Keio University, and an engraving of him by Edoardo Chiossone appears on the 10,000 yen banknote. See also newspapers, North American. Further reading: Blacker, Carmen. The Japanese Enlightenment: A Study of the Writings of Fukuzawa Yukichi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964; Kosaka, Masaaki, ed. Japanese Thought in the Meiji Era. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1958. Justin Corfi eld
Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit
fascism Fascism was a major political belief in the early 20th century, and the word was used offi cially by a number of political parties, notably the Italian Fascist Party. The name itself was derived from the fasces, the axe in a bundle of rods that represented the power and authority of ancient Rome. In 1922 the Fascist Party came to power in Italy, and the Nazi Party became a part of the German government in 1933. During World War II a large number of Fascist movements were installed either by Nazi Germany or with its support. Outside Europe and after World War II, some pseudo-Fascist groups also operated, mainly on the political fringes, with some mainstream political parties and politicians often accused of fascist tendencies by their enemies. Fascist movements have tended to be formulated around four major ideas: totalitarianism, economic socialism, extreme nationalism, and xenophobia. Most successful fascist movements have tended to be formed around charismatic leaders who preside over a totalitarian state wherein people are indoctrinated into believing in the leader and trusting in his judgment—fascist leaders have invariably been male. On an economic level, fascist movements have tended to adopt socialist policies and have generally been both antiliberal and anticonservative in their views. On the issue of nationalism fascist movements surround themselves with symbols of national identity such as fl ags, badges, and the adoption of certain historical characters and events as important in the creation of national identity. The extreme xenophobia of fascist movements has often led to racism, racist ideas, and racist violence. Although many historians see fascism as a reaction to an existing political situation, others see it as a historical trend, possibly with its origins from the Jacobins at the time of the French Revolution. Certainly Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and other fascists dated many of their ideas from the late 19th century. There had been a development of racist ideas by the French diplomat Joseph-Arthur, comte de Gobineau (1816–82), who is credited with the modern concept of racism. This gained greater impetus with the ideas of Social Darwinism, in which evolution made the white or Aryan the most developed form of human. This was to be an infl uence on Friedrich Nietzsche, composer Richard Wagner, and the early fascists in Europe. Although certain elements of the beliefs of the Jacobins were similar to the policies of some fascists, the mainstream European fascist movement has its origins in the reaction against the events of 1789 and the revolutions in 1830 and especially 1848 as well as the fear of the spread of ideas from the Paris Commune of 1870. Some commentators felt that the people who were rising to power were not as worthy as the old aristocracy, and Darwinism was used to argue that they were at a lower stage of biological evolution. In spite of this many fascists saw themselves as “revolutionary” in a noncommunist manner. More mainstream fascism viewed the revolutionary movements as tending to have their origins in the cities, and the peasants in the countryside, viewed as more racially pure, should be the true F inheritors of the new society. By the late 19th century and the rise of anti-Semitism, it was clear that many protofascists were becoming increasingly anti-Jewish, although a few certainly rejected such ideas. These disagreements can be seen in the eventual implementation of fascist policies. Although Nazi Germany had an avowed policy of anti-Semitism, which led to the Holocaust, Fascist Italy did not introduce anti-Jewish measures until 1938, and this may have been as much to ensure an Italian-German military alliance as for ideological reasons. FASCIST GOVERNMENTS The fi rst fascist party to come to power was the National Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista) in Italy. It was led by Benito Mussolini, who became the prime minister of Italy after his March on Rome in 1922. The actions of Mussolini inspired those of some other politicians in Europe, and during the 1920s, especially the last years of the decade, a number of mainstream political fi gures announced their support for Mussolini. In Germany the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Ar beiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which became the Nazi Party) of Adolf Hitler began to emerge as a political force in the late 1920s. It had links with Mussolini, and Hitler usually fl attered his Italian counterpart, even though he secretly had little time for him. Supporters in France were grouped in the Faisceau of Georges Valois, which operated from 1925 until 1928. However, it was the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 that was to provide the fascist movements in Europe and elsewhere with their greatest number of recruits. The failure of mainstream political parties to deal with the social legacy of World War I, rising unemployment, and the growing despair of many people throughout the world led to support for extremist political viewpoints, from the left and the right. This terminology persisted with right-wing politicians often denounced by their opponents as “fascists.” Several political fi gures, worried about the rising infl uence of communism, sought out a fascist alternative. On January 30, 1933, mainstream German political parties invited Hitler to become chancellor of the country. He rapidly used his position to take over the government, which was confi rmed when new elections to the Reichstag on March 3 led to the Nazis’ dominating the new parliament and expelling the communists. Over succeeding months the Nazis took more and more power, leading to the banning of other political parties on July 14. On December 1 the Nazi “revolution,” as it was called, saw the Nazi Party and the German state merged. Other fascist parties were emerging at the same time. Those who came to run their countries included the Vaterländische Front (Fatherland Front) of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria; the União Nacional (National Union) of António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal; and the Elefterofronoi (Party of Free Believers) of Ioannis Metaxas in Greece. The Nasjonal Samling (National Union) of Vidkun Quisling in Norway had much support in the early 1930s, although its membership dwindled in the late 1930s. Quisling himself was to collaborate with the Germans in World War II. In Spain in 1933 the Falange (Phalanx) was founded by the young and charismatic José Antonio Primo de Rivera. Although it never came to power in its own right—indeed, Primo de Rivera was killed at the start of the Spanish civil war in 1936—its members did ally themselves to Francisco Franco, and many of them served in the Spanish governments during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. OTHER EUROPEAN FASCIST MOVEMENTS With many of the early fascist thinkers being French, there was a major fascist movement in France. Much of it centered on the writings of Charles Maurras (1868– 1952). He believed that a union of the monarchy and the church could save Europe from anarchy and formed his movement, Action Française (French Action). The Croix de Feu (Cross of Fire), later renamed the Parti Social Français (French Social Party), was led by Colonel François de La Rocque and became one of the major right-wing parties in 1936–38, with a membership between 700,000 and 1.2 million. By 1939 these included 3,000 mayors, 1,000 municipal councilors, and 12 parliamentary deputies. In neighboring Belgium the Rexist Party of Léon Degrelle won 10 percent of the parliamentary seats in the 1936 elections. In eastern Europe the violently anti-Semitic Falanga of Bolesław Piasecki in Poland was an important political party but did not manage to dislodge the government of Józef Piłsudski. In Hungary the Nyilaskeresztes Párt (Arrow Cross Party) of Ferenc Szálasi was largely ineffectual until 1944, when Szálasi was appointed puppet prime minister of Hungary by Admiral Miklós Horthy. Romania also had its own fascist movement, known as the Garda de Fier (Iron Guard), which also operated under the names the League of Christian Defense, the Legion of the Archangel Michael, and All for the Fatherland. These groups, led by Corneliu Codreanu, were disbanded in 1938, with Codreanu himself arrest- 102 fascism ed in the following year. There were also fascist groups in the Baltic, with Viktor Arajs in Latvia and Vihtori Kosola, whose Lapua Movement tried to stage a coup d’état in Finland in 1932. As well as fascist movements within countries, there were also groups that recruited from exiles. The Ustaša (Insurgence) movement was led by Ante Pavelic´ from Croatia, who fl ed Yugoslavia in 1929 and only returned after the German invasion in 1941. Similarly, there were many Russian fascist groups whose recruits were White Russian exiles. Some of these operated from China, with branches in Manchuria and in Shanghai. Others had support from Russians in the United States. The largest of these were the Russian Fascist Party (VFP) of Konstantin Rodzaevsky and the All Russian Fascist Organization (VFO) of Anastasy Vonsiatsky. NON-EUROPEAN FASCISM Outside Europe several fascist groups were founded in the Middle East and in South Africa. The Syrian People’s Party, the Syrian National Socialist Party, the “Phalange” youth movement in Lebanon, the Futuwa movement of Iraq, and the Young Egypt movement also had fascist sympathies. In South Africa fascists found ready recruits among the Afrikaner community, which had become particularly politically active with the 100th anniversary of the Great Trek. The military dictatorship of Admiral Tojo Hideki in Japan was also regarded as fascist, and many secret societies, pressure groups, and the like were fascist in their views and their organization. These included the Anti-Red Corps, the Great Japan Youth Party, the Greater Japan National Essence Association, the Imperial Way Faction, the New Japan League, and the Taisho Sincerity League. In China the Blue Shirts certainly absorbed some fascist ideas. In the United States the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Legion were important mass movements that attracted many fascists. There were also the supporters of Father Charles Coughlin, whose radio broadcasts attracted widespread attention throughout the country. He became increasingly pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic and had the support of those members of the German communities in the United States who were members of the German-American Bund, which organized youth camps and mass rallies until 1941. In Latin America there were several indigenous fascist movements such as the Unión Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Union), which came to power when Luis Sánchez Cerro became president of Peru in 1930–31. Other groups included the Ação Integralista Brasileira (Brazilian Integralist Action Party), which had up to 200,000 members until it was suppressed in 1938; the Nacis of Jorge González von Mareés in Chile; and the Gold Shirts of Nicolás Rodríguez in Mexico. In addition, there were people from of the German community who were members of local branches of the Nazi Party. FASCISM DURING WORLD WAR II When the German army and its allies conquered much of Europe during the fi rst part of World War II, there was a fl ourishing of fascist movements, and many prewar fascists held government positions. Quisling became prime minister of Norway in 1940, and from 1942 to 1945 his name became the byword for collaborators, although there is much evidence that Quisling himself was not averse to challenging German “orders.” In France the regime of Marshal Pétain incorporated many prewar fascists, and there was also a resurgence in fascism in Belgium and the Netherlands. In Denmark a very small group of fascists formed themselves into the Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Arbejderparti (Danish National Socialist Workers’ Party). Members of the German minority in eastern Europe were prominent in their support for the Nazi Party. In Latvia Viktor Arajs gave his name to the “Arajs Commando,” a militia group that had been involved in the murder of several thousand Jews. In contrast, in Allied countries World War II saw the internment of fascists. Senior members of the British Union of Fascists were arrested when war broke out, and the movement was banned in 1940. In South Africa some members of pro-German organizations were also imprisoned. Pressure from Britain and also the United States after 1941 led to crackdowns on Nazi and fascist movements throughout South America. After World War II fascism was largely discredited in Europe, and it was many years before neofascist groups started emerging in Britain, France, Italy, and Austria, with small gatherings of neofascists in Germany. After the collapse of communism in eastern Europe fascist groups started organizing in the former East Germany, Romania, and Russia. In Austria, France, and Italy they had electoral success, but they remained on the fringe in most other countries. Outside Europe movements such as that of Juan Perón in Argentina had obvious similarities with European fascist parties, as did the military governments in other parts of Latin America, particularly in Stroessner’s Paraguay and Augusto Pinochet’s Chile. Fascist groups also continued to operate in South Africa until the establishment of black majority rule in 1994. fascism 103 FascisM Trends The strength of fascist movements relied heavily on unquestioning support for a specific leader. Hitler’s title, “Führer,” and Mussolini’s title, “Duce,” led to Franco’s resurrecting the old Spanish title caudillo. This lack of internal opposition, on account of total ruthlessness in suprressing it, clearly helped them form relatively successful totalitarian regimes. Oswald Mosley led the British fascist movement unchallenged during the 1930s and again after World War II. However, when he moved to France British fascists were left without a strong leader, and their movement fragmented. Some fascist leaders, such as José Antonio Primo de Rivera in Spain and Oswald Mosley in Britain, were aristocrats who were well connected. However, many other fascist leaders were the children of government employees. Hitler’s father was a customs official, Franco’s father was a naval paymaster, Himmler’s father was a schoolmaster, and Ferenc Szálasi’s father was a soldier. Of the self-employed, Goebbels’s father was an accountant, Mussolini’s father was a blacksmith, and Salazar was the only one from a very poor background. In economic terms many fascists had conservative economic programs, getting support from small businessmen, especially small farmers and shopkeepers. However, most fascist groups introduced economic policies that tended to benefit the wealthier people rather than their working-class supporters. Their support for big businesses, many of which had supported the fascist groups before they came to power, was shown by lavish government contracts, especially war contracts, making wealthy industrialists even richer. Hitler regarded much of his economic policy as being socialist, and he practiced widespread corporatism by organizing the major sectors of the economy into corporations. By contrast, the working class was hurt often with falls in real wages and reduction in the power of trade unions. On the issue of nationalism, Primo de Rivera wrote, “Spain is not a territory, neither is it an aggregate of men and women—Spain is, above all, an indivisible destiny.” This echoes Hitler’s slogan “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer.” Certainly one of the major traditions in fascism involves invoking the identity of one’s own country, often idolizing a particular historical period when the country in question dominated its neighbors. Fascist Italy took on much of the symbolism and indeed some of the terminology of ancient Rome. The invasion of Albania in April 1939 was, as far as many Italians were concerned, Italy taking back a territory it had controlled in ancient and indeed in medieval times, when much of it was a part of the Venetian Empire. In Germany Hitler harked back to the power of medieval Germany, with the “Third Reich” being seen as a logical successor to the “First Reich”—the medieval Holy Roman Empire—and the “Second Reich”—the German Empire built by Bismarck. Nazi Germany adopted as its heroes men like Charlemagne, Goethe, and Frederick the Great. The nationalist symbolism adopted by French fascists tended to involve an almost cult worshipping of Joan of Arc and Bertrand du Guesclin, who both fought the English during the Hundred Years’ War. It is no accident that most of the fascist heroes from history were military leaders, and most fascist groups adopted the trappings of paramilitary organizations, such as the adoption of the Blackshirt uniform in Britain. The Germans used brown shirts, and most other fascist groups adopted blue shirts. All developed a clear, simple party symbol: the fasces, the swastika, the flash of lightning, an arrow, or a variation on the standard cross. The last characteristic of many fascist groups was xenophobia and in many cases racism. Jean Renaud from French Solidarity wanted to prevent foreign migrants’ turning France into what he called “a depository for trash.” Others adopted similar policies, especially against Jews and Gypsies (Roma), who were the targets of Nazis and fascists from many other countries. Nazis also regarded Slavs as racially inferior, as Croatian fascists did the Serbs. Before World War II there was organized repression by the Nazis of Jews, Gypsies, and other groups. During the war itself the Nazis began a systematic extermination of these people in the Holocaust. Nazi propaganda also made frequent derogatory mentions of African Americans, and many fascists, especially postwar ones, have been antiblack. Some of the anti-Jewish beliefs were encapsulated in the views of Christianity of the period, viewing the Jews as the murderers of Jesus. In this regard it is curious that although many fascist ideologists tended to be agnostic or atheist in their views on religion, most European fascists and the vast majority of their Latin American counterparts were Christians and appealed to Christianity to justify many of their views. Further reading: Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. London: Routledge, 1993; Griffin, Roger, ed. Fascism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; Laqueur, Walter, ed. Fascism: A Reader’s Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976; Thomas, Hugh, ed. José Antonio Primo de Rivera: Selected Writings. London: Jonathan Cape, 1972; Thurlow, Richard. Fascism in Britain: A History, 1918–1985. London: Basil Blackwell, 1987. Justin Corfield 104 fascism Federal Reserve banking system, U.S. The Federal Reserve is the system of banking used since 1913 in the United States. Until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the U.S. banking system fell under the domain of the Civil War United States Banking Act. Historically, the United States used a central banking system. Federal statute legislated the First Bank of the United States in 1791 and the Second Bank in 1816. A free banking era without a central bank reigned from 1837 to 1862, followed by the 1863 National Banking Act. The panic of 1907, however, revealed the weaknesses of the Civil War legislation and, mixed with the national impetus to improve government that came with the progressive era, a push began to organize a more appropriate institutional structure for a national bank. The panic of 1907 illustrated the inflexibility of monetary policy under the Civil War–era structure. Monetary reserves were located in New York City and a handful of other larger cities. The location of reserves made it difficult to mobilize and distribute funds in geographically appropriate locations. The progressive response, familiar in many other areas of governance, gained momentum in the banking system, and a demand for a more responsive and organized way of dealing with monetary issues blossomed. In 1913 Democrats and Republicans disagreed over the institutional structure necessary to address the difficulties revealed by the Panic of 1907. Republicans preferred a third national bank of the United States. The bank would be owned and run by the commercial banking community, who would issue a central currency. On the other hand, the Democratic solution emerged from the Pujo Committee. Arsène P. Pujo argued that the power of financial monopolies rested in the hidden vaults of Wall Street. Hence, Democrats called for a system that was more decentralized, privately owned, and free from the control of the bankers of Wall Street. The Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C. Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law in 1913. According to many historians the Federal Reserve became the most significant economic legislation between the Civil War and the New Deal. Federal Reserve banking system, U.S. 105 Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law in 1913. According to many historians, the Federal Reserve became the most signifi cant economic legislation between the Civil War and the New Deal. The Federal Reserve system that resulted carried the United States through World War I and heralded progress of the United States toward the modern economic age. At the end of the day, however, the legislation failed in its primary purpose—preventing economic depression. Out of the legislation of 1913 came a Federal Reserve Board. The board members were appointed by the president and oversaw a nationwide network of 12 regional reserve districts—each serviced by its own central bank: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco. In turn the regional banks were owned by member fi nancial institutions. The Federal Reserve Board assured a great degree of public control over the regional centers. Finally, the Federal Reserve Act empowered the board to issue “Federal Reserve Notes” as legal tender in the United States. The Federal Reserve (Fed) also engages in a number of responsibilities necessary for economic well-being. It supervises all member banks and creates the mechanisms needed to control monetary policy. The Fed also controls the amount of currency produced and destroyed in close partnership with the Mint and Bureau of Engraving and Printing. An important fi nal point with regard to the Federal Reserve is its status as an independent agency. The Second Bank of the United States, during the 1830s, evolved into a political weapon used by Jackson and his Democratic supporters against the Whig Party. The intent and result of the 1913 legislation was to make the Federal Reserve independent of the executive branch. The decisions of the Federal Reserve are subject to the guidelines of the Freedom of Information Act, but the actions taken by the Fed need not be ratifi ed by the president or anyone else in the executive branch. The result has been an independence that allows the chair of the Fed and the Federal Reserve Board the latitude to implement far-reaching policies instead of the knee-jerk reactions common to partisan politics. Oversight of each Federal Reserve Bank is provided by the overall Board of Governors, who are appointed by the president and confi rmed by the Senate. Members of the board are linmited to one 14-year term and can only be removed by the president of the United States for cause. Further reading: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions. Toronto: Books for Business, 2002; Livingston, James. Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class, and Corporate Capitalism, 1890–1913. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986; Moore, Carl. Federal Reserve System: A History of the First 75 Years. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 1990; Wells, Donald. The Federal Reserve System: A History. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2004. Matthew H. Wahlert Flint sit-down strike (1936–1937) During the Great Depression rapid advances in industrial technology allowed employers to reduce their workforces while demanding increased production; layoffs, speed-ups, and reduced pay burdened destitute auto workers who were overworked, underpaid, harassed, and threatened with unjustifi ed termination. At 10:00 p.m. on December 30, 1936, workers at Fisher Body Plant Number One in Flint, Michigan, noticed rail men loading machine dies into railcars, an indication that General Motors planned to move their jobs to nonunion plants. In response the employees began a nonviolent, legal work stoppage by sitting down near valuable equipment, a relatively new organizing tactic. They then refused to leave the plant. Previously, protesters who had chosen the picket line as a means of demonstration were beaten by local police, the Black Legion, or National Guardsmen in corporate violation of New Deal legislation; by remaining inside and blocking doors and windows, the strikers were assured a high degree of safety. Shortly thereafter workers shut down Plant Number Two. On January 11, 1937, the Women’s Emergency Brigade, consisting of wives and supporters of the men locked inside Plant Number Two, delivered food to the strikers. The Flint police, at the urging of General Motors, attempted to storm the plant; tear gas and bullets were answered with a hail of auto door hinges, bolts, and streams of cold water from fi re hoses. The ensuing retreat came to be known as the “Battle of Bull’s Run,” for police were commonly referred to as “bulls.” By January 29, 1937, strike strategists fl oated a rumor that the union would try to take over Plant Number Six while feigning an attack on Plant Number Nine. Company spies reported this plan, but guards and security personnel were unprepared for the union’s real objective—Plant Number Four, General Motors’ 106 Flint sit-down strike (1936–1937) largest producer of Chevrolet engines. Both diversions were successful, and on February 1, 1937, union men easily took control of Plant Number Four, paralyzing national production. Frank Murphy, Michigan’s prolabor governor, refused General Motors’ request to break the strike with the intervention of National Guardsmen, and on February 11, 1937, day 44 of the sit-down, the company signed a contract with the United Auto Workers, recognizing the union as the sole bargaining agent for all members in all plants. Within two months of the “Strike Heard Around the World,” the Wagner Act was passed, guaranteeing workers the right to bargain collectively. Further reading: Fine, Sidney. Sit Down: The General Motors Strike of 1936–37. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969; Linder, Walter. The Great Flint Sit-down Strike Against G.M., 1936–37. Ann Arbor, MI: The Radical Education Project, 1967. John Mayernik Flores Magón, Ricardo (1874–1922) Mexican journalist Ricardo Flores Magón was an infl uential Mexican anarchist writer. He was born on September 16, 1874—the 64th anniversary of the proclamation of Mexico’s independence from Spain—in San Antonio Eloxochitlán, Oaxaca, Mexico. His father was Teodoro Flores, a Zapotec Indian, and his mother was Margarita Magón, half Indian and half Spanish. Teodoro was a strong believer in the communal ownership of land, and his ideas infl uenced his sons Ricardo, Jesús, and Enrique. When he was nine Ricardo started attending the Escuela Nacional Primaria in Mexico City. He proceeded to the Escuela Nacional Preparatora and on May 16, 1892, took part in a large demonstration against the Mexican president, Porfi rio Díaz. The crowd of 15,000 demanded the end of the Díaz dictatorship, and many were arrested, with Ricardo Flores sentenced to fi ve months in prison for sedition. On his release, Ricardo started working as a proofreader for the El Democrata newspaper. In April 1893 the newspaper offi ce was raided, and although most of the staff members were arrested, Ricardo managed to escape. In hiding for three months, he emerged to complete his law degree and become a lawyer. On August 7, 1900, he published the newspaper Regeneracion with the support of his brother Enrique. It was an overtly anarchist newspaper and was directly critical of the Diaz dictatorship. Ricardo Flores was hugely affected by his reading of the works of the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Some of his ideas can also be traced to Karl Marx and the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen. In 1901 Ricardo Flores got in trouble with the government by calling for the resignation of Mexican president Porfi rio Díaz. Ricardo and his older brother, Jesus, were arrested on May 22 and sentenced to 12 months in prison for “insulting the president.” They spent the next 11 months in jail, during which time their mother died. Both sons were refused permission to leave Belem Prison to see her before she died. Regeneracion was still being printed while the two brothers were in prison, but publication was fi nally suspended in October, when Díaz threatened to shoot Ricardo if it did not. Released on April 30, 1902, Ricardo and his younger brother, Enrique, were both arrested on September 12 and sentenced by a military tribunal to four months in prison for “insulting the army.” They were released on January 23, 1903. By this time, Díaz was tired of dealing with the Flores brothers and offered Ricardo a government position. However, he declined and started running the newspaper El Hijo del Ahuizote, which gained a circulation of 24,000. On April 16 Ricardo was again arrested and jailed until October. On June 9 the supreme court of Mexico banned the publication of any article by Ricardo Flores. On their release in October 1904, Ricardo and Enrique decided to move to the United States and settled in San Antonio, Texas, to avoid being arrested again. There they issued a second version of Regeneracion, and in December 1904 a man forced his way into the Flores house and tried to stab Ricardo. Enrique saved his brother’s life but was fi ned for assaulting the hired assassin, who was freed. Then came pressure on the local government from San Antonio businessmen, causing Flores to move to St. Louis, Missouri, where he issued a third version of the newspaper, with circulation rising to as high as 30,000. In 1905 he joined with others to form the organising junta of the Mexican Liberal Party. Ricardo Flores had infl uenced many U.S. anarchists and on March 21, 1918, he was arrested under the Sedition Act for “obstructing the war effort.” On August 15, after a trial held in camera, Ricardo was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and his colleague Flores Magón, Ricardo 107 Librado was sentenced to 15 years. They were then taken to McNeil Island Penitentiary. In the following year Ricardo was moved to Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas, with Librado also being transferred there in the following year. The 1920 U.S. federal census lists Ricardo Flores as aged 25 and eight months (rather than 45 and eight months), and his occupation is listed as “writer.” Back in Mexico the president, Alvaro Obregón, had awarded the two men a pension, and in the following year the Mexican embassy in Washington, D.C., was instructed to intervene to gain the two men’s release. This led to a strike in Mexico for Ricardo’s release. On November 21, 1922, Ricardo’s dead body was found in his cell. His death was suspicious, and there were bruise marks around his throat indicating that he may well have been strangled—many anarchists claim that he was murdered. On the following day the Mexican chamber of deputies voted to pay all the costs for his burial in Mexico. His body was buried at the Rotonda de los Hombres Ilustres in Mexico City. Further reading: Poole, David, ed. Land and Liberty: Anarchist Infl uences in the Mexican Revolution—Ricardo Flores Magon. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1977. Justin Corfi eld Ford, Henry (1863–1947) automotive entrepreneur Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company and the man who developed modern factory assembly lines for the mass production of his cars, was born on July 30, 1863, on a farm west of Detroit, Michigan. His father, William Ford, was born in Ireland, and his mother was born in Michigan, her parents having emigrated from Belgium. As a teenager Ford became fascinated by mechanics, and by the time he was 15 he was well known for his ability to fi x watches. His father had expected him to take over the family farm, but he left home to become an apprentice machinist, later returning to the farm, to which he brought some of his new-found skills using a Westinghouse portable steam engine. He then started working for Westinghouse. In 1891 Ford began as an engineer for the Edison Illuminating Company and two years later was appointed their chief engineer. In 1896 he developed the Quadricycle, a self-propelled vehicle that he test-drove. In 1903 Ford and 11 others incorporated the Ford Motor Company, which led to the testdriving and then the production of the Model T Ford. It fi rst appeared on October 1, 1908, and had the entire engine and transmission enclosed, as well as having the steering wheel on the left. They were offered for sale at $825, with the price dropping each year. Anxious to get skilled workers and retain them, he paid a wage of $5 per day from January 5, 1914, doubling the pay of many of his workers (who had previously received $2.34 per day). Previously, staff turnover was such that he had employed 300 men to fi ll 100 positions. He also reduced the working day from nine hours to eight, gaining himself great loyalty from his staff. The moving assembly belts in his factories had been introduced in the previous year, and Ford’s factories in Detroit and then gradually elsewhere were producing cars so quickly and effi ciently that sales passed 250,000 in 1914. Four years later it was reported that half of all cars in the United States were Model T Fords. Although the initial cars were available in several colors, they were soon all black in color, with the black paint being the quickest to dry, thereby again reducing costs. Ford was later to write that a customer could “have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” By 1927 some 15,007,034 Model T Ford cars had been produced. At the request of U.S. president Woodrow Wilson, in 1918 Ford contested the Senate seat for Michigan as a Democrat. He supported interventionism and proclaimed himself a strong supporter of the Ford Motor Company. Soon afterward he turned over the presidency of the Ford Motor Company to Edsel Ford, his son. However, he continued to take part in the running of the company, intervening from time to time. Ford had high moral values and frowned on heavy drinking and gambling by his workforce. He also was opposed to trade unions operating in his factories. This regularly led to battles between his private security guards and union organizers and their supporters. With Ford’s factories at River Rouge, Detroit, forming the world’s largest industrial complex, he also started selling cars overseas and established assembly plants in the 1920s in Germany, Australia, India, and France. By 1929 there were dealerships on all six continents and even a factory constructed in the city of Gorky (modern-day Nizhny Novgorod) in the Soviet Union in 1929. The depression of the 1930s hurt the Ford Motor Company badly, but the Ford family managed to keep it going. He had a stroke in 1938, when 108 Ford, Henry he once again turned the running of the company over to Edsel, and died on April 7, 1947. One of his most famous sayings was “History is bunk.” Further reading: Ford, Henry. My Life and Work. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1925; Nevins, Allan, and Frank Ernest Hill. Ford: The Times, The Man, The Company. New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1954; ———. Ford: Expansion and Challenge 1915–1933. New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1957; ———. Ford: Decline and Rebirth, 1933–1962. New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1962. Justin Corfield Franco, Francisco (1892–1975) Spanish dictator The man who led the nationalists to victory during the Spanish civil war and governed Spain until his death in 1975, Francisco Franco Bahamonde was the longestserving dictator in Europe in the 20th century, narrowly eclipsing the record set by his neighbor, Portuguese dictator António de Oliveira Salazar. Francisco Franco Bahamonde was born in 1892 in El Ferrol, near Corunna on the Atlantic coast of Spain. It was the country’s most important naval base, and his father, Nicolas, worked in the pay corps in the naval arsenal, as had his father before him. Franco’s father was Franco, Francisco 109 A row of completed “Tin Lizzies,” or Model T automobiles, comes off the Ford assembly line in Detroit, Michigan, in 1917. Henry Ford’s mass-production techniques brought about a revolution in transportation. a gambler and drinker, so the upbringing of Francisco Franco and his four siblings was left to their mother, María, who raised the children as devout Roman Catholics. Franco was six when the Spanish-American War broke out, and it was not long before he saw what was left of the once-proud Spanish navy limp back into El Ferrol following the loss of the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. Franco’s application to the naval academy was rejected, so he went to the Infantry Training College at the Alcazar in Toledo, near Madrid. There Franco was initially the smallest boy in his class, but he completed his time there in 1910, the youngest in his graduation year. Commissioned as a lieutenant, he went to Morocco, where he served in the Regulares. This unit, a forerunner of the Spanish foreign legion, was involved in some of the toughest combat against Abd el-Krim. Promoted to major at the age of 23, Franco was badly wounded in the stomach but miraculously survived. A later account had him threatening to shoot the doctor when the medic decided not to evacuate him because his wound was regarded as too serious. Returning to Morocco in 1921, Franco led a brilliant action near Melilla, a Spanish-held town on the Mediterranean coast, and was promoted to lieutenantcolonel and then gazetted full colonel soon afterward. In October 1923 Franco was asked by King Afonso XIII to escort him when the royal party toured Spanish Morocco. Three years later Franco was promoted by a special decree to the rank of brigadier general, making him, at the age of 33, not only the youngest general in Spain but also the youngest general in Europe since Napoleon. In 1927 the Spanish finally announced the defeat of Abd el-Krim, and Franco was appointed to head the General Military Academy in Saragossa. The aim of the academy was to create a new Spanish army, and this enabled Franco to inspect a training school at Leipzig. Franco was courted by the politician Primo de Rivera to stage a coup against King Alfonso XIII, but Franco declined. Primo de Rivera died soon afterward, and when the king visited the academy at Saragossa he publicly embraced Franco and gave the school the right to fly the royal standard. In April 1931 he abdicated the throne, and Spain became a republic. The first elections during the republic saw a leftwing government come to power. The new government wanted to reduce the influence of the army, and one of the leaders of the republic, Manuel Azana, ordered the closure of the Saragossa Academy. In 1932 there was a plan to stage a military coup, but it never happened. In the following year’s elections, a right-wing coalition government was elected. By now Franco’s brother-inlaw, Ramón Serrano Súñer, was a rising politician, and he helped Franco in his next assignment. Opposing the conservative government, 40,000 miners in Asturias in the north of Spain went on strike, and Franco was sent to put down this revolt. He used Moorish soldiers and brutally crushed the miners’ revolt—over 1,000 people died, and many more were thrown into prison. Many Spaniards were worried by the treatment of the miners and also by the rise of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. In February 1936 the elections saw a new left-wing government elected, and the military prepared to stage a coup to bring down this Popular Front government. The new republican government, worried about Franco, posted him to the Canary Islands. On July 18 Franco was flown to Spanish Morocco, and the army there rose to support him as the generals openly proclaimed their aim to bring down the Spanish government. With the outbreak of the Spanish civil war the republicans tried to prevent Franco and his men from reaching the Spanish mainland, but an airlift was organized by the Italians and Germans. Franco then marched his men and their mainland supporters toward Madrid. By the end of July Franco’s supporters, the nationalists, controlled a large swath of territory in northern Spain, a pocket around Cádiz, Seville, and Córdoba in the south, and Spanish Morocco. Franco nearly reached Madrid but diverted his attack to rescue the besieged nationalists at the Alcazar in Toledo. Although this action was highlighted as an “honorable” action in the foreign press, it did allow the republicans to reinforce Madrid and thus prolong the war for another three years. In October 1936 Franco, by then one of the leading commanders of the rebellion, was proclaimed the supreme commander of the nationalist forces and the chief of state of a nationalist government with its capital at Burgos in northern Spain. The original leader, General Sanjurjo, had been killed in a plane crash some months earlier. Over the next three years of the war, Franco emerged as a political figure who united his forces into a unified command structure. The Falange (Spanish fascists), monarchists, Carlists, moderate Catholics, and conservatives put aside their not inconsiderable differences to face the republicans, whose divisions and factional disputes became legendary. With support from Germany and Italy, Franco’s soldiers gradually captured more and more territory from the republicans. Adopting the title caudillo, he portrayed the war as a crusade by which he was to save Spain from Soviet communism, anarchists, and Freemasons. Franco remained a conservative military commander and avoided taking risks. As a result, he was 110 Franco, Francisco accused by his own supporters of holding back from delivering a decisive military thrust to allow his men to totally destroy the republicans by attrition. On May 18, 1939, Franco issued his last communiqué of the war, and on the following day he presided over a victory parade through Madrid. Less than four months after the end of the Spanish civil war, World War II broke out, and with the early German victories it was expected that Franco would declare Spanish support for the Axis. Even after Italy’s entering the war and the defeat of France, Spain remained neutral. On October 12, 1940, Adolf Hitler traveled to the French-Spanish frontier to meet Franco. Franco left San Sebastian for the 30-minute train journey, which took three hours. Later Franco was to use this to illustrate his reluctance, but it seems more probable that it was to do with the dilapidated state of the railway stock. The meeting went badly. Apparently, Franco wanted control of the French North African colonies as his price for involvement in the war. Franco also opposed the Germans’ establishing bases in Spain, but he did allow submarines to refuel. He also allowed Spanish volunteers to serve on the Russian front and allowed the formation of the “Blue Division,” as they were known. Franco’s caution meant that he did not attack Gibraltar, which he could probably have easily captured and which the Germans wanted him to take. However, he did take control of the international city of Tangier— which was returned to international rule at the conclusion of the war. Although Franco had remained neutral in 1945, Franco’s government was treated as a pariah. In December 1946 the United Nations General Assembly condemned Spain and urged its members to withdraw their ambassadors from Madrid. It was not until 1955 that Spain was admitted to the United Nations, and it did not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) until 1982. Gradually, Franco changed the overt nature of his regime. Although Franco dominated the political scene, the Spanish economy was devastated, and unemployment and underemployment were widespread. Franco was anxious to get economic aid from the United States and softened his stance in 1947 by holding a referendum on the “Law of Succession” that established Franco as a dictator acting as a regent of the Kingdom of Spain. It was, however, the fi rst time the Spanish people had voted in 11 years. Franco also started courting Argentina, which was the only country that had fl outed the United Nations, request to withdraw ambassadors in 1946. Argentina at that time had not had an ambassador in Madrid, but after the UN vote it hastily fi lled the vacancy. Soon afterward it was announced that Juan Perón, president of Argentina, and his wife, Eva, would visit Madrid. Eventually, it was Eva who made the state visit, and this signaled the end of Spain’s international isolation. In 1969 Franco fi nally named his successor as Prince Juan Carlos de Borbón, with the title prince of Spain. Technically, the father of Juan Carlos had a greater claim, but this also annoyed Carlists, who had supported Franco in the civil war. Four years later Franco gave up the post of head of government but remained head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. He died on November 20, 1975, and was buried behind the high altar at the basilica at the Valle de los Caidos (Valley of the Fallen), a church carved into a mountain that offi cially serves as a memorial for the dead of both sides of the civil war but has long symbolized the nationalist cause. See also Rif rebellion. Further reading: Crozier, Brian. Franco: A Biographical History. London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1967; de Blaye, Edouard. Franco and the Politics of Spain. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1976; Preston, Paul. Franco: A Biography. London: HarperCollins, 1993; Thomas, Hugh. The Spanish Civil War. London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1961; Trythall, W. D. Franco. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1970. Justin Corfi eld French mandate in Syria and Lebanon Following the defeat and the subsequent collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the geographic area of greater Syria came under French mandate rule as stipulated by the League of Nations in 1920. Under French rule, the mandate authority, in addition to expanding the Ottoman Wilayat of Lebanon at the expense of Syria, divided Syria into four new separate districts: Aleppo, Latikia, Damascus, and Jebel Druze. French rule in Syria faced violence, rebellions, and political opposition by the Syrians, who never accepted French domination The country now known as Lebanon was created on September 1, 1920, by enlarging the Ottoman Wilayat of Lebanon to include previously Syrian-held territory north and south of its borders. The entity of greater Lebanon (1920–26), as the new state was called, was fashioned after French republican ideals with a constitution and an executive president elected by a French mandate in Syria and Lebanon 111 parliament. In 1932 a census was conducted that resulted in the confi rmation of 18 religious sects in the country. In an attempt to provide better representation in the government, the results of the 1932 census were incorporated in Article 95 of the constitution, establishing a confessional system. The Kingdom of Syria (1918–20) was declared soon after the Ottoman army had been defeated in 1918. Headed by the Hashemite king Faysal (also Feisal) I, the kingdom rejected the French mandate. The opposition to French rule did not end with the demise of the Hashemite Kingdom of Syria. On the contrary, it was fortifi ed by a strong nationalist sentiment, and rebellions periodically erupted throughout the mandate years; these culminated in the Great Arab Rebellion of 1936, which resulted in the French bombardment of Damascus. In 1940 during World War II, the French overseas territories were controlled by the pro-Nazi Vichy French government. In 1941 British and Free French forces overthrew the Vichy forces and granted Syria and Lebanon nominal independence. In 1942 parliamentary elections in Syria brought the nationalist National Bloc to power; it began negotiating for independence with the French government. In Lebanon the political elite agreed on a formula to distribute power under the National Pact of 1943. With U.S. and Soviet recognition, Syrian independence was granted in 1943. Lebanon was also granted independence the same year, but French troops remained stationed in both countries until 1946. Syria celebrated its independence day on April 17, 1946, while Lebanon celebrated independence day on November 22, 1943, and marked withdrawal day on April 17, 1946. Further reading: Khoury, Philip S. Syria and the French Mandate: The Politics of Arab Nationalism, 1920–1945. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987; Longrigg, Stephen Hemsley. Syria and Lebanon under the French Mandate. London: Oxford University Press, 1958. Ramziabou Zeineddine French West Africa (Afrique occidentale française) French West Africa came into being in 1895 when France decided to consolidate its African holdings. Initially, French West Africa was a temporary combination of Senegal, French Guinea (now Guinea), French Sudan (now Mali), and Côte d’Ivoire. In 1904 it became permanent, with territories including Dahomey (now Benin), French Guinea, French Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, Mauretania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso). The federation was ruled by a governor-general fi rst from Saint-Louis and then, after 1902, from Dakar, both in Senegal. The federation supported Vichy France during World War II before accepting the Free French in November 1942. The federation occupied an area of 4,689,000 square kilometers, most of which was desert or semidesert in the interior of Niger, Sudan, and Mauretania. One of the largest colonial possessions in Africa, the federation reached from westernmost Africa at Cape Verde to deep within the Sahara. Population at its creation was over 10 million. When the federation dissolved, its population was about 25 million. West Africa was not a primitive area when the Europeans arrived. Precolonial empires and states included Ghana, Mali, Songhai, and Hausa. The precolonial era was also a time when Islam expanded into West Africa. The Europeans entered and disrupted a highly complex society. The slave trade in West Africa expanded greatly beginning in the late 16th century and continued to grow into the mid-19th century. By the 18th century the slave trade was an important ingredient in the European interest in Africa, especially for providing slaves to New World plantation economies. The increasing New World demand coincided with Islamic jihads and rivalries between the precolonial states. The capture and transfer of Africans into slavery became the dominant commerce for the Portuguese, then the Dutch, then the British and French. The British, Dutch, and Portuguese controlled the major slave ports between Ghana and the Cameroons. Africans also facilitated the slave trade. The French early on regarded their African possessions as overseas provinces. The early efforts to colonize were unsuccessful, though, and in the mid-19th century interest shifted from colonization to mercantile prospects. Trade with the savanna of the interior coincided with the race for Africa of the late 19th century. The Berlin Act of 1885 formalized the partition of Africa, including West Africa. By 1890 the French had signed treaties with African leaders that in theory authorized their annexation of much of western Sudan. Military superiority allowed the French to acquire large territories, most of it desert or otherwise worthless. The French did not turn to commercial development until early in the 20th century. 112 French West Africa (Afrique occidentale française) In the early 1890s France conquered Dahomey, made Côte d’Ivoire a formal colony, and obtained territory in Upper Volta. French Africa ran from Algeria to the Gulf of Guinea. The administrative unit known as French West Africa included the coastal colonies— Senegal, French Guinea, and Côte d’Ivoire—as well as the French Sudan, the large interior territory that included present-day Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. Dahomey became part of French West Africa in 1899. French Sudan became Haut Senegal-Niger in 1904. Mauretania became a protectorate in 1905. Upper Volta separated from Haut Sénégal–Niger in 1919, and the remaining Haut Sénégal–Niger became French Sudan once more. Mauretania became a colony and part of French West Africa in 1920. Niger separated from French Sudan in 1922. Senegal was the only part of French West Africa with even token assimilation, and participation by Africans in French affairs was confi ned to Saint-Louis. Elsewhere in French West Africa, inhabitants were subjects, not citizens. The European French were increasingly skeptical about the ability of the Africans to become “suitable” French citizens. The assimilationist philosophy of the original exploration was gone by the time of the French West African Federation in 1895. Rather than allow local authority, the French established direct rule in the form of a governor-general taking his orders directly from the minister of colonies and the government in Paris. The governor-general relayed orders and fi nancing to his lieutenant governors in the territories. Senegal had representative government as a residue of the original assimilationist impulse—citizens could represent the Senegalese in France. The French effort to make the colony pay its own way led to their pushing the productivity of groundnuts and cotton where suitable. Extraction of valuable resources was also emphasized. Taxes forced the population into the cash economy. Inhabitants of areas where cash crops were impractical were encouraged to migrate to wage-earning areas. Servitude nearing slavery was tolerated in the interest of profi tability. The French did provide at least a small amount of missionary effort as well as minimal educational and health services. The economic benefi t accrued to the French only. After World War I France relaxed its rule somewhat. Occasional revolts as well as a rediscovery of African tradition encouraged the easing of the slavery and aristocratic rule that had characterized the decades from the mid-1890s until the war. Tribal leaders were more respected after France reinstated them. Initially loyal to Vichy France during World War II, French West Africa shifted to the Allies after the U.S. invasion of North Africa and the occupation of Dakar, Senegal, by the Allies. The Free French under General Charles de Gaulle took control of French West Africa. When World War II was over, the Europeans were worn out, unwilling politically, and unable economically to resist demands for political reform in colonies that were increasingly an intolerable fi nancial burden. The Europeans living in Africa were an issue. Also, the colonies provided valuable resources. But the benefi ts were far from matching the costs. And independence came in the 1960s. France also had an ego at stake in the postwar era. Defeat and occupation were not preconditions for an easy abandonment of the empire. After World War II France’s overseas colonies in Africa became overseas territories. Their inhabitants became eligible for French citizenship. They also received the right to organize political parties and have representation in the French legislature. When given the choice of complete independence or self-governance as members of the new French Community (France and its former colonies), which was intended for common defense, foreign policy, education, and other common matters, all elected to join the community except French Guinea, which became independent Guinea in October 1958. With the establishment of the French Community, French West Africa was no more. The autonomous states of French Sudan, Senegal, Upper Volta, and Dahomey united into the Federation of Mali, named for the ancient African Mali Empire, in 1958. Upper Volta and Dahomey withdrew before the federation became operational in January 1960. By August 1960, when Senegal withdrew, the federation was defunct. Postwar nationalism and the example of the newly independent English colonies, led by Ghana in 1957, produced a strong impulse toward independence in French West Africa. Between August and November 1960, Dahomey, Niger, Upper Volta, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Mali, and Mauretania gained their independence. See also Senghor, Leopold Sèdar. Further reading: Chafer, Tony. The End of Empire in French West Africa. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2002; Conklin, Alice L. A Mission to Civilize. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997; Le Vine, Victor T. Politics in Francophone Africa. London: Lynne Rienner, 2004; Reynolds, David. One World Divisible. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000. John H. Barnhill French West Africa (Afrique occidentale française) 113 Freud, Sigmund (1856–1939) founder of psychoanalysis Freud’s theories had and still have great effects on psychiatry, psychology, and related fi elds. For many, Freud is the most infl uential intellectual of his age because his theories provided a completely new interpretation of culture, society, and history. Freud was born into a Jewish family in Freiberg (today Príbor), Moravia, in the Austrian Empire (now the Czech Republic). His large family had only limited fi nances but made every effort to foster his intellect, which was apparent from an early age. In 1873 Freud entered the University of Vienna as a medical student, and in 1881 he received a doctorate. Beginning in 1882, he worked as a clinical assistant at the Central Hospital of Vienna. In 1885 Freud was appointed lecturer of neuropathology. At this time he also developed an interest in the pharmaceutical benefi ts of cocaine, which he pursued for several years. Despite some limited successes, the general outcome of this research was disastrous and tarnished Freud’s medical reputation for some time. In late 1885 Freud left Vienna and traveled to Paris to continue his studies under the guidance of the famous neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. Charcot’s work with patients classifi ed as hysterics confronted Freud with the possibility that some, if not all, mental disorders might be caused by psychological factors rather than by organic diseases. This insight proved to be a turning point in Freud’s career. Having been confronted with the use of hypnosis in therapy, Freud returned to Vienna in February 1886 with the seed of his revolutionary method implanted. Several months after his return, Freud married the daughter of a prominent Jewish family, Martha Bernays. She was to bear him six children, one of whom, Anna Freud, was later to become a distinguished psychoanalyst in her own right. Freud then turned to a clinical practice in neuropsychology. Shortly after his marriage Freud entered into a fruitful partnership with his fellow physician Josef Breuer. Their main cowritten work was Studies in Hysteria, published in 1895. This book contains a presentation of Freud’s psychoanalytical method of free association. This pioneering method of psychoanalysis—a term Freud created in 1896—allowed him to arrive at numerous insights. Freud and Breuer discovered that for many of their patients the very act of verbalization of their problems seemed to provide some relief. Such a “talking cure” resulted in an abreaction. Freud subsequently developed a theory of the human mind and clinical techniques for helping neurotics. The goal of Freudian therapy is to bring to consciousness repressed feelings. Typically, this is achieved by encouraging the patient to talk in free association and to repeat his or her dreams. Another important element of psychoanalysis is a lack of involvement by the analyst, which is meant to encourage the patient to project emotions onto the analyst. Through this transference the patient can resolve repressed confl icts. Freud also observed the power of what he called the patient’s defenses against any expression of unconscious thoughts and feelings. He looked for a method to overcome such blockages. Freud was the fi rst one to believe that the most insistent source of resisted material was sexual. Perhaps the most signifi cant contribution Freud made to modern interpretations of human nature is his conception of the dynamic unconscious. He suggested that we are not entirely aware of what we think and often act for reasons that have little to do with our conscious thoughts. On the contrary, Freud proposed that there were thoughts occurring below the surface. His basic assumption was that all dreams, even nightmares manifesting apparent anxiety, are the fulfi llment of imaginary wishes. One could also regard dreams to be the disguised expression of wish fulfi llments. Many commentators consider The Interpretation of Dreams Freud’s masterwork because it provides a hermeneutic for the unmasking of the dream’s disguise. Crucial to the operation of the unconscious is repression. Because of the incompatibility of the unconscious with conscious thoughts, these feelings are normally hidden, forgotten, or unavailable to conscious refl ection. Such thoughts and feelings cannot, Freud argued, be banished from the mind, but they can be banished from consciousness. Freud observed that the process of repression is itself a nonconscious act. He supposed that what people repressed was determined by their unconscious. Freud sought to explain how the unconscious operates by proposing that it has a particular structure divided into three parts: id, ego, and superego. The unconscious id represents primary process thinking, our primitive need-gratifi cation thoughts. The superego represents our socially induced conscience and counteracts the id with moral and ethical thoughts. The largely conscious ego stands in between both to balance our primitive needs and our moral beliefs. A healthy ego provides the ability to adapt to reality and interact with the outside world in a way that accommodates both id and superego. Freud was especially concerned with 114 Freud, Sigmund the dynamic relationship between these three parts of the mind. According to Freud, the defense mechanisms are the method by which the ego can solve the confl icts between the superego and the id. The overuse of defense mechanisms can lead to either anxiety or guilt, which may result in psychological disorders. In 1905 Freud published Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. The book established its author as a pioneer in the serious study of sexology. Sexuality, Freud concluded, is the prime mover in a great deal of human activities and behavior. Freud believed that humans were motivated by two drives, libidinal energy/Eros and the death drive/Thanatos. Freud’s description of Eros/libido included all creative, life-producing drives. The death drive represented an urge inherent in all living things to return to a state of calm or of nonexistence. According to Freud, children pass through a stage where they fi xate on the parent of the opposite sex and think of the same-sexed parent as a rival. Every male child has the desire to sleep with his mother and remove his father, who is the obstacle to the realization of that wish. Turning, as he often did, to evidence from literary and mythical texts, Freud named his theory the Oedipus complex after the Greek tragedy by Sophocles. Freud expressed highly infl uential and controversial views on the psychology of women. He was an early champion of both sexual freedom and education for women. Some feminists, however, have argued that Freud’s views of women’s sexual development set the progress of women back decades. Believing as Freud did that women are a kind of mutilated male who must learn to accept her deformity (the lack of a penis), he contributed to the vocabulary of misogyny. Terms such as penis envy and castrating discouraged women from entering any fi eld dominated by men. Psychoanalysis today maintains the same ambivalent relationship with medicine and academia that Freud experienced during his life. His psychological theories are still hotly disputed. Although Freud has been long regarded as a genius, psychiatry and psychology have been recast as scientifi c disciplines. Freud examined the rationality to be found even in material regarded as thoroughly irrational and meaningless, such as dreams, verbal slips, neurotic symptoms, and the verbal productions of psychotics. Conversely, he discovered irrationality even in material that is manifestly rational. Freud introduced a novel discursive technique in the talking cure. Psychoanalysis enables people to mitigate distress through the indirect revelation of unconscious content. The other schools of psychology have produced alternative methods of psychotherapy. In 1909 Freud, together with Carl Gustav Jung and Sándor Ferenczi, visited the United States and lectured there. Generally, Freud had little tolerance for colleagues who diverged from his psychoanalytic doctrines. He attempted to expel those who disagreed with the movement or even refused to accept certain aspects of his theory that he considered central. The most widely noted schisms occurred with Adler in 1911 and Jung in 1913. These clashes were followed by later breaks with Ferenczi and Wilhelm Reich in the 1920s. Freud lived and worked in Vienna for nearly 78 years, deeply inspired by the town’s intellectual atmosphere. Following Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria in March 1938, Freud fl ed Austria with his family. On June 4, 1938, they were allowed across the border into France, and then they traveled to London. Freud died there three weeks after the fi rst shots of World War II had been fi red. Further reading: Dufresne, Todd. Killing Freud. London, New York: Continuum, 2003; Eysenck, Hans Jürgen. Decline & Fall of the Freudian Empire. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2004; Macmillan, Malcolm. Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997; Neu, Jerome, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Freud. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Wollheim, Richard. Sigmund Freud. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Martin Moll Freyre, Gilberto (1900–1987) Brazilian ethnologist and politician Gilberto de Melo Freyre was the author of many books that traced the cultural heritage of Brazilians from Indians, Portuguese, and African slaves. He was born on March 15, 1900, at Apipucos, near Recife, and after being educated at home attended the American Baptist School, the Colégio Americano Gilreath de Pernambuco. From a wealthy plantation family, he traveled to the United States to complete his education, attending Baylor University at Waco, Texas, where he graduated with a bachelor of arts. He then went to Columbia University, where he graduated with a master of arts in Latin American history in 1923. At Columbia he was greatly infl uenced by lecturers Franz Boas, J. H. Hayes, and Edwin R. A. Seligman. Freyre then journeyed to Europe, visiting anthropology museums in Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal. Freyre, Gilberto 115 Returning to Brazil, Freyre, who started teaching sociology, organized in 1926 the fi rst northeastern regionalist congress to be held in Recife, which saw the publication of his “Regionalist Manifesto.” His political activity in Brazil meant that after 1930 and the collapse of the Third Republic, Freyre had to leave Brazil. He left in October, going to Bahia and then to Portugal via Portuguese Africa, which he felt was a historic opportunity to experience the Portuguese diaspora. In Lisbon Freyre studied at the National Library, and in February 1931 he was offered a position in the United States working as a visiting professor at Stanford University. This allowed him to spend time researching the nature of slavery in the United States. Freyre returned to Brazil a few years later and helped found sociology departments at the University of Rio de Janeiro and the University of São Paulo. In 1934 he was to organize the fi rst Congress of Afro-Brazilian Studies, which was held at Recife and achieved notoriety in political circles because of its emphasis on establishing the causes of Afro-Brazilian poverty as environmental. Freyre spent most of his life studying the socioeconomic development of the area around Recife—the northeastern part of Brazil. He documented the many links between that part of Latin America and the Portuguese colonies in Africa, particularly Portuguese Guinea (modern-day Guinea-Bissau), São Tomé and Príncipe, and Angola. His studies of Portuguese colonialism made him believe that since the Portuguese had, before they found Brazil, extensive colonial experiences in Africa, they were better equipped to deal with the problems in the Americas than the Spanish were. This, in turn, Freyre argued, led to a more successful multiracial and multicultural society. The author of many books, his best known was Casa-grande e senzala (The big house and the slave quarters, published in 1933), which was translated into English as The Masters and the Slaves. It was a detailed sociological thesis that described the relationships between the Portuguese colonial masters and their African slaves. It also includes plans of the Noruega Plantation in Recife, which was used as the basis for a section of the book. He compares and contrasts at length the Brazilian plantation society with that in the southern United States, noting that the planters in both areas were keen on “the rocking chair, good cooking, women, horses and gambling.” Although early detractors called Freyre a communist and a pornographer, he was socially conservative and had worked as secretary to his cousin, Estácio de Albuquerque Coimbra, who was governor of Pernambuco from 1926 to 1927 and from 1929 to 1930. In 1946, with the reintroduction of democracy to Brazil, Freyre was elected to the national constituent assembly and was a member of the chamber of deputies from 1946 until 1950. In 1949 Freyre represented Brazil at the United Nations General Assembly with the rank of ambassador. He welcomed the rightwing military government of Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco in 1964. He rapidly became closely identifi ed as a supporter of the government, and his sociological work was increasingly criticized for its highlighting of “benign” aspects of Brazilian slavery. In 1968 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Münster, in Germany. Repeatedly nominated for the Nobel Prize, he was never invited to join the Brazilian Academy of Letters. He died on July 18, 1987, at Recife. Further reading: Freyre, Gilberto. The Gilberto Freyre Reader. New York: Knopf, 1974; ———. The Masters and the Slaves. New York: Knopf, 1946. Justin Corfi eld
The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit
Falklands War (1982) The Falklands War was a short war between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), occurring between March and June of 1982. The Falklands consist of two large—and many small— islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, rich in subaquatic offshore oil reserves. Disputes over the sovereignty of the islands have occurred since the 18th century, as the islands are actually located within the Argentinean continental platform. However, in spite of many Argentinean claims, in 1833 British troops and inhabitants took possession of the islands. At the beginning of the 1980s Argentina’s military government had become less powerful. Argentina faced a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest, with many people clamoring for the return of democracy. As a way of recovering some power and maintaining the military dictatorship, the Argentine government— headed in 1982 by General Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri—decided to play off long-standing feelings of nationalism by launching what it thought would be a quick and easy war to reclaim the Falkland Islands. Most of Argentina’s military experts likely misjudged the political climate in Britain and did not anticipate that the British would move their fleet halfway across the globe to reclaim their rights over the islands. After days of tension, the war finally began on April 2, 1982, when General Galtieri ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands, triggering the Falklands War. During the first weeks Argentina’s troops moved quickly, invading the islands, defeating the improvised British troops, and gaining domain of the islands. Britain quickly organized a naval task force, consisting of the HMS Conqueror submarine, helicopters, Royal Air Force bombers and fighters, destroyers, and a large number of naval fighting boats. In comparison to Argentina’s task force technologically, in quantity, and in the areas of military professionalism and experience, British troops by far were better prepared than the Argentinean troops. Although there was a huge difference in military power between the two forces, the war lasted four months and resulted in 255 killed and 746 wounded on the British side and 655 killed, 1,100 wounded, and 11,313 prisoners on the Argentinean side. One of the war crimes most sadly remembered by the Argentineans was the sinking of the General Belgrano light cruiser. The cruiser was located in the “total exclusion zone” of 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) that had been established by the British before commencing operations in order to keep neutral shipping out of the way during the war. In spite of that, on May 2 the British HMS Conqueror submarine fired torpedoes, hit the boat, and sank it, taking the lives of 321 Argentinean soldiers. In response to that, the Argentine air force launched an air attack and sank the destroyer HMS Sheffield. As a result, 22 British sailors were killed and 24 were injured. Given the difference in military force between the sides, the war quickly turned in Britain’s (United Kingdom’s, or U.K.’s) favor. In addition to their military advantage, the U.K. government received strong international support from the United States, France, and Chile, among other countries. F Legally the United States had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the U.K. as a member of NATO and to Argentina by the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Pact). However, the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty only obliged the signatories to support if the attack occurred in Europe or North America above the tropic of Cancer. The Rio Pact obliged the United States to intervene if an adherent was attacked; the U.K. never attacked Argentina, only Argentine forces on British territory. French President François Mitterrand gave full support to the U.K. in the Falklands War. France provided the U.K. with aircraft, identical to the ones it had supplied to Argentina, for British pilots to train against and also provided intelligence to help sabotage the Exocet missiles it had sold to the Argentine air force. In Latin America, Argentina’s neighbor country Chile also gave its support to the U.K. by providing important logistical support during the war and strategic help by threatening an invasion on the west border of Argentina. Argentina’s only support was military assistance from Peru and Venezuela. This came in the form of critical aircraft supplies like long-range air fuel tanks. Cuba and Bolivia also offered ground troops, but their offers were seen as political propaganda and not accepted. Only after the war was over did the Brazilian air force send some reinforcements. The British eventually prevailed, and the islands remained under British control. On June 14, 1982, after the final battle in Port Stanley, the commander of the Argentine garrison in Stanley, Mario Menendez, surrendered to Major General Moore of the Royal Marines. From the British point of view, the Falklands War was one of many small military conflicts in which the U.K. has been engaged. For Argentina, the war remains the country’s main military conflict and is very much present in the people’s memory. As of 2006, Argentina still showed no sign of relinquishing its claim to the Falkland Islands. Further reading: Hastings, Max, and Simon Jenkins. The Battle for the Falklands. New York: Norton, 1983; Middlebrook, Martin. The Fight for the “Malvinas”: The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War. New York: Viking, 1989; West, Nigel. The Secret War for the Falklands: The SAS, MI6, and the War Whitehall Nearly Lost. London: Little, Brown, 1997; Woodward, Sandy, and Patrick Robinson. One Hundred Days: The Memoirs of the Falklands Battle Group Commander. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1992. Diego I. Murguía Falun Gong Falun Gong is a system of meditation exercises, termed qigong, introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Falun Gong, translated as Practice of the Wheel of Law, grew quickly after its public introduction and is also known as Falun Dafa. In 1999 the Chinese government suppressed Falun Gong in response to hugely growing numbers and large peaceful demonstrations by Falun Gong practitioners. In 1992 Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Gong at the Fifth Middle School in China. A system of qigong, Falun Gong is a cultivation practice associated with Buddhism. The foundation of Falun Gong is dharma, the doctrine and discipline of Buddhism. The Falun Gong core principles are truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. Qigong systems teach breathing techniques and meditation. In Falun Gong, practitioners are required to enforce strict meditation and must abide by truth, compassion, and endurance in all of their actions. Falun Gong, using evidence they believe does not fit into modern anthropology, teaches that humankind has endured several cycles of civilization. Its teachings emphasize not belief but rational understanding. To pray or hope for things is considered futile action. Lust, homosexuality, and other practices considered of low morals in Falun Gong are believed to hinder the cultivation process. According to its beliefs there are five important sets of exercises that include meditation: four standing exercises and one sitting exercise that strengthen the mind and the body. It also believes that karma is the cause of disease and that only by letting go of earthly attachments can one prevent and cure disease. Additionally, in Falun Gong the Wheel of Law (the Falun) must be installed in the abdomen through meditation. Once installed, this Falun turns continuously. By the late 1990s, Falun Gong, spread by the Internet, had gained followers all over the world. Controversy over its beliefs led to protests by believers in 1998, during which some practitioners were arrested. According to Falun Gong reports, the police beat some of the protesters. On July 20, 1999, the Chinese government began attempts to suppress the movement, concerned about its growth. Books and Web sites related to Falun Gong were suppressed, and the movement was declared illegal in China. However, the movement continues to claim followers in more than 80 countries, where governmental reactions range from acceptance to suspicion. One estimate projects their membership to be around 70 million people. Further reading: Adams, Ian, et al. Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution. Toronto: Stoddart, 2001; Chang, 148 Falun Gong Maria Hsia. Falun Gong: The End of Days. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004; Schechter, David. Falun Gong’s Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or Evil Cult? New York: Akashic Books, 2000. Melissa Benne Fanon, Frantz (1925–1961) Third World spokesperson Frantz Fanon, born of the descendants of African slaves, was raised on the French Caribbean island of Martinique; he was French-educated and became a practicing psychiatrist as well as an influential writer and spokesperson for Third World revolutions during the 1950s–1960s. Fanon influenced an entire generation of revolutionary activists in Africa and in the Civil Rights movement in the United States. Influenced by Aimé Césaire and the ideas of Negritude, Fanon championed the cause of black liberation movements and, in his books and essays, explored the interrelationship of racism and colonialism. Fanon worked with the French resistance against the Nazis in World War II and went to Algeria as doctor at a hospital at Blida in the early 1950s. After the Algerian revolution broke out in 1954, Fanon quit to join the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) and became a leading spokesperson for the cause of Algerian independence from the French. His books, Black Skin, White Masks (1952) and Wretched of the Earth, published posthumously in 1961, became “handbooks of black revolution.” Fanon argued that violence was an integral part of the struggles for Third World independence because imperial colonial powers would never willingly cede their control over people of color. Fanon died of leukemia in Washington, D.C., in 1961 and was returned to be buried on Algerian soil. Further reading: Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1952; ———. Wretched of the Earth. London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1965; Haddour, Azzedine, ed. The Fanon Reader. London: Pluto Press, 2003. Janice J. Terry feminism, worldwide The phenomenon of feminism worldwide in the latter part of the 20th century reflects the diversity of social and cultural theories, political movements, and moral and religious philosophies shaped by the experiences of women. There is no universally accepted form of feminism that represents all of its advocates, but its representatives share a similar vision. Feminist theory continues to question basic assumptions about gender and sexuality, including the understanding of what it means to be a woman. Feminist scholars and activists seek clarity about feminine consciousness, the identity of women, their values, and their ambitions. They address the issue of oppression by men as an issue of power, dominion, and hierarchy. Feminists believe this oppression exists in relation to the identity of women and the challenges they have to face in local and global contexts. By the mid-20th century the feminist movement had brought about positive transformation and advances for women. Historically, feminism began as a women’s movement that originated at the Seneca Falls Convention (1848) held in New York State. This first wave of feminism formally ended in 1920 with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which secured the right to vote for women. Ironically, the values of the early feminist movement have been so ingrained in Western culture that society generally accepts them, even though individuals who agree with those values may not accept being labeled “feminist.” feminism, second wave In the late 1960s, after 40 years consumed by economic depression, world war, and cold war fears, women again revisited issues of gender equality, launching a movement that came to be called Second Wave Feminism. Looking beyond the right to vote, many women in the industrialized world, joined by some women from developing nations, asserted new rights and demanded liberation from stereotypical female roles. A precursor of the post-suffrage women’s movement appeared in 1949, when French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908–86) published The Second Sex, a major analysis of women’s lives and roles. Extremely controversial— the book was forbidden to Roman Catholics— de Beauvoir’s insights had little immediate effect on Western women, many of whom had embraced child rearing and homemaking in the prosperous years following World War II. By the 1960s a growing racial Civil Rights movement and rising opposition to Soviet and U.S. cold war policies were sparking protests in Europe and the Americas. In this climate journalist Betty Friedan’s 1963 analysis, The Feminine Mystique, was a huge best seller. Pointing to educated, middle-class women’s feminism, worldwide 149 dissatisfaction with their “perfect” lives, Friedan (1921–2006) not only posed a “problem that has no name” but also helped found the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966 to deal with it. Canada’s National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) followed in 1971. The movement quickly took on a life of its own, as women in many nations found new ways to understand and advance their social, economic, and political rights. Asserting that “the personal is political,” movement women discussed issues long considered private, such as motherhood, divorce, abortion, rape, lesbian relationships, prostitution, and the sexual double standard. In 1976 de Beauvoir keynoted a huge International Women’s Day rally in Brussels that criticized the timidity of United Nations efforts for women. The same year 100,000 Italian women held the first “Take Back the Night” march to spotlight male violence against women. first women Around the world, female political leaders began to emerge in far greater numbers than ever before. Legislative bodies in Scandinavia and other western European nations saw near-parity in their sex ratios. In 1984 Geraldine Ferraro (1935– ) became the first woman chosen for vice president by a major U.S. party (the ticket lost) and in 2007 Nancy Pelosi (1940– ) of California became the United States’ first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. Nations including Britain, India, and Pakistan have been governed by women, although critics say that the feminist movement had little to do with their success. As was true during the original suffrage movement, not all women (or men) were comfortable with Second Wave Feminism’s new issues and styles of protest. Competing efforts to define the contours of women’s equality versus women’s differences from men continue to create controversy, as does the relevance of feminism in the lives of poor women, women of color, and women living in traditional societies—especially in Africa and the Islamic world. As an example, in the United States Alice Paul’s Equal Rights Amendment of 1923 was reclaimed by new feminist leaders and became the centerpiece of a broad spectrum of women’s rights initiatives. In 1972 this measure, promising “equal rights under the law” for women, easily cleared Congress and was sent to the states for ratification. Religious conservatives, led by mother and lawyer Phyllis Schlafly (1924– ), were able to raise enough opposition to halt the ERA three states short of passage. Schlafly and her supporters feared that traditional wives and mothers would be devalued and could lose legal protections. Claims by some opponents that the ERA would require that public toilets be available to both sexes helped reduce a spirited political controversy to farce. Other feminist proposals proved more successful. Title IX, a 1972 federal program to afford equal opportunities to high school and college women—although still controversial—greatly expanded women’s college enrollments and participation in competitive sports. Legislation and market forces combined to narrow the “pay gap” between men and women. Modern contraception— the “pill”—was approved for sale in the United States in 1960; birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger (1870–1966) helped finance its development. In 1965 a Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut struck down a law that had prohibited contraceptive use even by married couples. By 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow decision in Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Continuing bitter controversy over Roe highlights some general problems that, depending on one’s view, 150 feminism, worldwide Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, a book that helped spark the Second Wave women’s movement. have either hampered the modern women’s movement or kept it within reasonable bounds. In the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, anti-abortion protests have tended to increase restrictions and have sometimes made safe, legal abortion unavailable, especially to the poor and rural. Nations emerging from communism, including Russia, where abortion was freely allowed after 1955, have tended to tighten formerly liberal abortion and contraception alternatives. The same middle-class women whom Friedan urged to shed the bondage of woman’s “separate sphere” have struggled with demanding full-time jobs paired with fulltime home responsibilities, although European nations have traditionally offered generous maternity and childcare benefits. Help-wanted ads no longer separate male and female opportunities. However, women who have surged into law, medicine, science, the military, and other nontraditional jobs have experienced pay gaps, sexual harassment, and the so-called glass ceiling, which is said to limit women’s ultimate success. By the early 21st century, especially among the Second Wave’s second and third generations, a “mommy track”—giving up an unfulfilling job for motherhood—has emerged as at least a temporary alternative. Critics point out that the mommy track offers little help or economic advancement to working-class mothers. third -wave feminism Recently Third-Wave feminists have been identified, although the Second-Wave feminists assert that the work of the Second Wave is by no means complete. Women who were born in the 1960s–1970s felt that their personal experience set them apart from older leaders of the feminist movement. Third-Wave feminists of this period, having inherited a feminist tradition from the First and Second waves, strove to form their own distinct identity as feminists, naming and seeking to correct perceived inadequacies and contradictions of their predecessors. Hazel Carby, a representative of the Third Wave of feminism, identified a problem with the Second Wave. She believed that the Second Wave overlooked the experiences of black women by emphasizing the experiences of patriarchy and oppression endured by white women. She concluded that theories of patriarchal oppression studied in the 1970s and early 1980s overlooked the negative influences that slavery, colonialism, and imperialism had on women, and sought to raise awareness about these issues through her writings. Many, but not all, figures within feminism worldwide have been women. Feminists argue that men should not be leaders within feminist organizations because they have been conditioned to seek leadership aggressively. Similarly, those critical of accepting men in the movement believe that women have been socialized to defer to men, which may hinder their asserting their own leadership when working alongside men. Even so, some feminists believe men should be accepted within the movement because the virtue of equality should serve to promote inclusion and acceptance. The feminist movement has been influenced by and has shaped the study of culture. Since the late 1970s feminist cultural studies have expanded the study of women and established gender as an important criteria of analysis within broader cultural studies. Feminist cultural studies serve to answer questions about the influences of present cultural systems and their oppression of women and what can be done to combat patriarchy and oppression. Feminist cultural scholars, by observing the everyday lives of women, learn about their daily experience, how they cope with it, and how they are challenged by systems of inequality and oppression. Essentially all cultural objects, writings, and practices constitute the subject of cultural studies, and thus the subjects of feminist cultural studies are likewise as diverse. Areas that are studied within feminist cultural studies include advertising, art, being a housewife, class, colonialism, materialism, movies, pornography, postcolonialism, shopping, soap operas, and youth subcultures. In the 1980s cultural feminists used the mass media in their analysis of culture. Feminist cultural scholars believe that an analysis of mass media gives insight into the dynamics of society and politics. Feminists who study the influence of mass media on culture seek answers to the questions of how women may relate to and be affected by the mass media and how oppressive patriarchal ideologies may be throughout all forms of mass media. Studies argue that women who engage in watching television dramas and reading romance novels actively judge implicit patriarchal messages found within them. After the late 1980s, the feminist movement was influenced by post-structuralism. Post-structuralist feminists seek to understand and value feminine subjectivity and the implications of the power of written discourse for women. Some writings argue that the term and meaning of woman itself results from male-dominated discourse. Through uncritical use of the word, it loses its value in trying to shape and transform feminist thinking. These writings have caused feminists to insist that feminist cultural studies have lost track of the real material lives of women. feminism, worldwide 151 The feminist movement has had an effect on written and spoken language in the latter part of the 20th century. English-speaking feminists have advocated using nonsexist language, for example, Ms. instead of Mrs. or Miss and herstory for history. Many feminists advocate using gender-inclusive language, such as humanity in place of mankind or he or she or just she instead of he when the gender of a subject is unknown. Many non-English languages do not have gendered pronouns and thus do not require gender-inclusive language. The increasing popularity, however, of using English in the world gives feminists reason to promote gender inclusivity in language. The influence of feminism in the late-20th century created distinctive ways of developing ethics. Feminist ethics attempt to investigate and rethink traditional Western ethics that do not take into account the moral experiences of women, in order to form a critique of traditional ethical theories formed by a male-dominated culture. The aim of the different forms of feminist ethics possesses a liberating aspect, based on moral theory founded in nonsexist methodology. Late 20th-century feminist thought has also influenced the movement toward equality in Islamic countries. Grounded in Islamic thought, Islamic feminists seek full equality of men and women in both the public and personal sphere. Among the issues addressed are the female dress code in Muslim society, sexuality, and the legal discrimination against women. A variety of women-centered approaches to feminist ethics have been developed, including feminine, lesbian, maternal, political, and theological. These approaches seek to provide guidelines for undermining the systematic subordination of women. The different forms of feminism that exist worldwide in the late-20th and early-21st centuries are manifold. They include African-American, Amazon, anarcha-feminism, black, cultural, ecofeminism, egalitarian, equity, existentialist, French, gender, gynocentric, individualist, lesbian and lesbian separatism, liberal, male pro-feminism, material, non-Western, postcolonial, postmodern, pro-sex, psychoanalytic, queer theory, radical, segregationalist, Socialist, spiritual, standpoint, theological, third-world, transfeminism, transnational, and womanist. Further reading: Antrobus, Peggy. The Global Women’s Movement: Origins, Issues and Strategies, Global Issues. London: Zed Books, 2004; Hendershott, Ann. The Politics of Abortion. New York: Encounter Books, 2006; McCann, Carole R., and Seung-Kyung Kim, eds. Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2003; Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. New Delhi: Zubaan, 2003; Narayan, Uma. Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third-World Feminism. New York: Routledge, 1997; Rosen, Ruth. The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America. New York: Viking, 2000. Marsha Ackermann and Christopher M. Cook Fonseca Amador, Carlos (1936–1976) Nicaraguan revolutionary The intellectual guiding light of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional, or FSLN) from its founding in 1961–62 until his death in battle in 1976, Carlos Fonseca Amador ranks among the most influential figures in modern Nicaraguan history, and one of the era’s most prominent Latin American revolutionaries. As an adult who was tall, slender, severely nearsighted, and self-abnegating, he was born out of wedlock as Carlos Alberto Fonseca on June 23, 1936, in the provincial city of Matagalpa, Nicaragua, to seamstress and laundress Augustina Fonseca Ubeda. His biological father, Fausto Amador Alemán, was one of the region’s wealthiest and most prominent coffee growers and businessmen. Growing up in the abject poverty characteristic of the city’s working class, at age 14 Carlos entered Matagalpa’s only public secondary school, the only one among five maternal siblings to go beyond primary school. A gifted student, he read voraciously, and at age 18 became active in the local branch of the banned Nicaraguan Communist Party (PSN). In the same year he copublished a cultural journal, Segovia, in which he developed many of the themes that would later play a major role in his political thought. Graduating from high school in 1955, he was honored for finishing all five years as first in his class. Moving to Managua, he worked in the library of the prestigious Instituto Ramírez Goyena high school before settling in León and enrolling in the National University of Nicaragua (UNAN) as a law student, where he became involved in radical student politics. Arrested by the regime of Luis Somoza following the assassination of Somoza’s father, Anastasio Somoza, in September 1956, Fonseca was jailed for seven weeks. In 1957 he embarked on a PSN-sponsored trip to Moscow as the Nicaraguan delegate to the Sixth World Congress of Students and Youth for Peace and Friendship. The 152 Fonseca Amador, Carlos next year he published Un Nicaragüense en Moscú (A Nicaraguan in Moscow) and became one of UNAN’s top student leaders. With the triumph of the Cuban revolution in January 1959, he traveled to Cuba, along with many other Nicaraguan dissidents. Upon his return, in April he was arrested and deported to Guatemala. From there he joined a newly formed guerrilla group training in Honduras. On June 24, 1959, he was severely wounded in a firefight with the Honduran military and Nicaraguan National Guard at El Chapparal. The event was a turning point. He broke with the PSN and, determined to forge an independent revolutionary movement modeled on Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement, he returned to Cuba and began a serious study of Nicaraguan rebel leader Augusto C. Sandino. In 1961–62 Fonseca and several comrades formed the FSLN, though the idea of using Sandino’s name and image was Fonseca’s. He interpreted Sandino as a kind of “path” that, through the FSLN vanguard, would combine Marxist theories of class struggle with Nicaragua’s unique history and culture of popular resistance. Henceforth Fonseca was the group’s undisputed leader. Organizing relentlessly and writing prolifically, for the next 15 years Fonseca guided the group through many hardships and phases. He was killed in a National Guard ambush on November 7, 1976, in the mountains northeast of Matagalpa, nearly three years before FSLN overthrew Somoza. Further reading: Borge, Tomás. The Patient Impatience: From Boyhood to Guerrilla: A Personal Narrative of Nicaragua’s Struggle for Liberation. Willimantic, CT: Curbstone Press, 1992; Fonseca, Carlos. Obras: Bajo la bandera del sandinismo. Managua: Editorial Nueva Nicaragua, 1985; Zimmermann, Matilde. Sandinista: Carlos Fonseca and the Nicaraguan Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000. Michael J. Schroeder Ford, Gerald (1913–2006) U.S. president Gerald Ford was the president of the United States from 1974 to 1977, following a vice presidency of about eight months. He is perhaps best known as the successor to disgraced president Richard Nixon, whom he pardoned, and as the American president during the fall of Saigon. A college football player, graduate of Yale Law School, and navy officer during World War II, Ford became an active Republican after the war and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1948 on an internationalist platform that meshed well with the recent creation of the United Nations. He served as a representative for 24 years, proposing no major legislation and focusing instead on negotiating between and supporting the legislation of others. As a member of the Warren Commission appointed to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he altered the Commission’s findings to misreport the location of one of Kennedy’s wounds in order to support the single bullet theory—tampering that was not revealed until 1997. In 1973, while Ford was House minority leader, Nixon’s vice president Spiro Agnew resigned in the middle of the Watergate scandal. The Speaker of the House and other congressional leaders made it clear to Nixon that they would accept only the mild, moderate Ford as Agnew’s replacement. He was confirmed at the end of the year and became president when Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. One month later, Ford pardoned Nixon preemptively for any crimes committed against the nation during his presidency. The pardon brought great criticism upon Ford: Some accused him of pardoning Nixon in exchange for the resignation that made him president, others thought it was simply terrible judgment. Many agreed that it discouraged the pursuit of charges against Nixon, hampering the Watergate investigation; Ford’s supporters have pointed to a 1915 Supreme Court decision that established that for the accused to accept a pardon, he must Ford, Gerald 153 President Gerald Ford (left) and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger converse on the grounds of the White House in 1974. accept his guilt. Thus, pardoning Nixon found the former president guilty in the process. In September 1975 two assassination attempts were made on Ford, the first by Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a troubled young follower of Charles Manson. Secret Service agent Larry Buendorf managed to block the hammer of Fromme’s handgun with his thumb, preventing her from firing. Later in the month, 45-year-old bookkeeper Sara Jane Moore shot at Ford during his visit to San Francisco, but failed because of the intervention of bystander Billy Sipple, a former marine and Vietnam veteran who soon became a gay hero when he came out of the closet. Moore’s motivations are unclear, but she spoke of wanting to “create chaos.” Ford was upfront about the odd start to his presidency and referred to himself as an “unelected” president. The vice presidency was filled by Nelson Rockefeller, the popular and well-connected New York governor whose presidential bids had repeatedly failed. Rockefeller’s replacement when Ford ran in the 1976 election was Bob Dole, who would later be known for his own run of failed presidential campaigns. After narrowly beating Governor Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination, Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter. In 1980 he rejected Reagan’s offer to make him his running mate when Reagan refused to consider a “copresidency” in which Ford’s power would be increased beyond ordinary vice presidential duties. As an ex-president, he spoke in favor of election reform and gay rights and condemned the war in Iraq. He died the day after Christmas, 2006, at the age of 93— the longest-lived American president. Further reading: Casserly, John J. The Ford White House: Diary of a Speechwriter. Denver: Colorado University Press, 1977; Ford, Gerald R. A Time to Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald Ford. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979; Greene, John Robert. The Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1995; Mieczkowski, Yanek. Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s. Lexington: Kentucky University Press, 2005. Bill Kte’pi Free Speech Movement The Free Speech Movement (FSM) began in 1964 at the University of California, in Berkeley. It was the catalyst for student protest in the United States and in the world during the 1960s–1970s. The movement began as a protest by students, teaching assistants, and faculty against the university’s ban on political activities and sought to establish the right to state political views on campus. The size of the incoming freshman class at Berkeley grew by 37 percent between 1963–64. Humanities and social majors had risen from 36 to 50 percent in the previous decade. The new students were more socially conscious than their predecessors. The president of the University of California system, Clark Kerr, anticipated the influx, but failed to anticipate that the old in loco parentis philosophy was impractical in the face of student restlessness and activism. The student left wing began emerging in the late 1950s as the anticommunist fervor of the McCarthy era eased. Some of its leaders were the children of liberal and radical professionals. The student party at Berkeley, SLATE, wanted to end nuclear testing, capital punishment, and the cold war. In 1957 it began running slates of candidates in student elections, and it included civil rights as one of its issues. Berkeley students in 1960 protested the San Francisco hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), to radicals the most blatant symbol of the 1950s suppression of civil liberties. Police turned fire hoses on the protesters and arrested many of them. The HUAC produced a film, Operation Abolition, that attempted to portray the protesters as subversives, but the movie backfired—it was so poorly done that it supported the liberal case against the committee. It later became a cult classic on campuses. Mario Savio, the son of a Roman Catholic machinist, entered this climate. Savio spent the 1964 summer teaching at a freedom school in McComb, Mississippi. After returning to Berkeley in September 1964, he learned that the traditional venue for protest, the Bancroft strip of Telegraph Avenue just outside Berkeley’s main gate, was off limits for the handing out of pamphlets, petitions, and recruitment because it had been the scene of demonstrations by students against local businesses that discriminated. The conservative regents pressed the administration into closing the campus and adjacent areas to recruiting and agitation. The students reacted angrily. SLATE, anti-HUAC groups, civil rights activists, and ordinary students— even some conservative ones—protested the closure. On September 29, they set up tables on the Bancroft strip and refused an order to leave. On September 30, the university officials began taking names. When five protesters were ordered to appear before disciplinary hearings, 500, led by Mario Savio, marched on the 154 Free Speech Movement administration building. The marchers demanded that they be punished too. The administrators added the three leaders of the march to the five and suspended all eight. The next day, students received handbills declaring that a fight for speech was under way. Student tables in front of Sproul Hall included representatives from the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Du Bois Club, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and half a dozen others. When asked to identify himself, Jack Weinberg at the CORE table refused. When campus police attempted to arrest him, Weinberg went limp in the classic civil disobedience manner. For 32 hours the police car containing Weinberg and the police was unable to move. Finally Kerr and the student representatives compromised. Weinberg was released, the academic senate committee examined the question of suspensions, and the big issue of appropriate political behavior on campus was given to a faculty-studentadministrator committee. That took care of the incident. It did nothing to stop the rebellion. prior restraint The FSM wanted an absolute First Amendment freedom of political activity. When the senate committee announced a compromise, Savio denounced it as prior restraint. On November 9 Savio and his allies put up the tables even though the administration opposed them. The administration did nothing, leading many undergraduates to conclude that the administration was picking and choosing, taking on the FSM because it was weak. The undergraduates shifted support back to the FSM. The faculty senate committee issued its findings on November 13. Six of the eight were to be reinstated, but Savio and Art Goldberg were to be on suspension for six weeks—retroactive to the incident more than six weeks in the past. The regents increased the penalties for Savio and Goldberg. FSM became stronger as the semester ended. On December 2, in another protest of university action against the FSM, the graduate students went on strike. Four to five thousand heard Savio speak against the grinding of the machine and about the need to resist, and 1,000 to 1,500 students occupied the administration building. Under the authority of Governor Pat Brown, 600 state and county police cordoned off Sproul Hall, and the chancellor ordered the students to leave. Clearing the building of limp protesters took 12 hours. All 773 arrested for trespassing were out on bail the next day. The strikers were well organized, and with the support of faculty sympathizers turned out thousands of flyers. Most teaching assistants and faculty cancelled classes. Kerr cancelled Monday classes to allow for a meeting where all could hear about his facultyapproved “new era of freedom under law.” When the meeting ended, Savio attempted to speak, but two campus guards dragged him from the stage. To the FSM supporters, it was a blatant denial of free speech. The crowd demanded that Savio be allowed to speak; he announced a rally at Sproul Plaza. old system The academic senate meeting on the following day was the largest in memory. Several thousand students outside heard the proceedings over loudspeakers. The senate’s academic freedom committee endorsed all FSM demands, leaving the administration only the power to prevent physical disruption. Conservatives attempted to establish limits, but the proposals passed 824 to 115. Shortly thereafter the FSM ended the strike. The next day SLATE won every student government office. On December 18 the regents refused to accept the faculty committee’s recommendations. The University of California’s board of regents resisted the pressure initially, but it slowly retreated until, on January 2, 1965, the new acting chancellor, Martin Meyerson, ceded most of the FSM’s basic demands. The regents reinstated the rights of students to set up tables on campus, especially in Sproul Plaza, and to collect money through donations. They could also distribute literature and recruit members. Protests and marches for religious, social, and political causes were once again permitted. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement was the prototype of the new campus liberalism. It altered the American campus for the foreseeable future. Traditional controls and curricula were gone, and students enjoyed the free exchange of ideas and freedom in general. The Berkeley FSM was but the first round in the generational clash of the 1960s–1970s. It brought to students the tactics of the Civil Rights movement, tools the students would use in protesting the war in Vietnam. Veterans of the 1960s protests would turn into leaders of the women’s rights movement, and both conservatism and liberalism would change. Ronald Reagan would emerge from political obscurity on the issue of opposition to all that the FSM represented. See also McCarthyism; Vietnam War. Further reading: Cohen, Robert, and Reginald E. Zelnick, eds. The Free Speech Movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. John H. Barnhill free speech movement 155 FRELIMO FRELIMO, founded in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on June 25, 1962, is the result of a merger among three regionally based nationalist organizations—the Mozambican African National Union, the National Democratic Union of Mozambique, and the National African Union of Independent Mozambique. Eduardo Mondlane, its first president, settled its headquarters in 1963 outside of Mozambique in Dar es Salaam. His group was founded on the ideals of liberation from Portugal’s colonial power. He was assassinated in 1969 by Portuguese forces. By 1964 FRELIMO controlled most of the northern regions of Mozambique. The war waged against the Portuguese, concurrent with the anticolonial wars in Angola and Guinea-Bissau, drew heavy economic losses for Portugal. The resulting depression in Portugal contributed to the end of fascism in the home country and aided the victory of FRELIMO over the colonial forces. Portugal and FRELIMO negotiated Mozambique’s independence, but FRELIMO’s victory in 1975 also delivered a completely bankrupt nation. FRELIMO established a one-party state based on Marxist principles, with Samora Machel as the first president of the newly independent nation. Its Marxist and communist roots provided Mozambique with diplomatic and some military support from Cuba and the Soviet Union. The new FRELIMO government went on to fight a civil war with RENAMO—a South African– and Rhodesian-sponsored political faction. This conflict did not see a resolution until the Rome General Peace Accords were signed in 1992. Mozambique, as inherited by FRELIMO, was rife with poverty and illiteracy. The Portuguese colonists had prohibited elementary education to the indigenous population, and upon fleeing the Portuguese dug up roadways, destroyed electrical and plumbing infrastructure, killed livestock, smashed equipment, and left the national treasury empty. In March 1976 FRELIMO closed its borders to Rhodesia. The price of this solidarity was $600 million in lost Rhodesian revenue and punitive sanctions imposed by apartheid South Africa on independent Mozambique. Rhodesia, backed by South Africa, waged war against Mozambique and FRELIMO with increasingly harsh raids into Mozambique’s central provinces. Yet despite the continuation of war, FRELIMO, with overwhelming popular support, was able to cultivate outstanding economic growth in Mozambique by 1979. Mass literacy campaigns quickly nullified centuries of deprivation, and FRELIMO’s healthcare policies were soon lauded worldwide as an ideal for developing nations. With Machel’s death in 1986, Joaquim Chissano began to lead both FRELIMO and Mozambique. Despite his education in the communist bloc countries, Chissano was not a hard-line Marxist and called for democratic, multiparty elections in 1994 that put an end to single-party rule. Chissano stepped down, and Armando Emilio Guebuza took over as leader of FRELIMO and Mozambique in 2005. Further reading: Bowen, Merle L. The State against the Peasantry: Rural Struggles in Colonial and Post-Colonial Mozambique. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2000; Finnegan, William. Complicated War: The Harrowing of Mozambique. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004; Hall, Margaret, and Tom Young. Confronting Leviathan: Mozambique since Independence. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1997. Rian Wall