Fandom

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History J

749pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

Ad blocker interference detected!


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

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

The Ancient World Edit

Jainism Jainism is one of the world’s great religions. It was started in India during the Axial Age by the religious reformer Nataputta Vardhamana Mahavira. Like Gautama Buddha, with whom he was a contemporary, he was from a noble warrior family and also rejected the Vedas and the formalism of Vedic religion. He is often mentioned in Buddhist scriptures by the name of Nigantha Nataputta (the naked ascetic of the clan of Jnatrikas). Nataputta Vardhamana was a son of Siddhartha, a chief of the warrior clan of the Jnatrikas. His mother, Trishala, was the sister of Chetaka, the chief of the Licchavis tribe. Vardhamana was reared in aristocratic luxury; however, in his youth he wanted to join a band of ascetic monks who lived in a park just outside of town. The monks were followers of Parshva, who had lived several hundred years before as an ascetic preacher. Because of fi lial duties Vardhamana did not take up the ascetic life until after the death of his parents. Vardhamana was carried in an expensive litter to the park where the band of monks dwelled. When he arrived he was wearing gold ornaments and fi nery. He threw them off, pulled out his hair, and took the vow to live a life of complete detachment to the world. Following an extremely severe ascetic practice Vardhamana rejected all shelter from the elements. He sought to avoid sleep, went uncleansed and unclothed, and avoided human society. He was on several occasions abused by angry villagers who interpreted his silence as insolence. After 12 years of rigorous ascetic practice (tapas) Vardhamana experienced liberation from karma. Jain sources say that in deep meditation he reached nirvana and became a completed soul (the complete and full, best knowledge and intuition called kevala). Thus he became Jina (Conqueror), Mahavira (Great Hero), and the 24th Tirthankara (Ford-fi nder). These titles are the ones by which his followers have named him ever since. After Mahavira’s liberating experience he set out on a 30-year teaching career, proclaiming the way of ascetic detachment as the path of salvation. He organized a band of disciplined, naked monks and sent them forth to teach the way of liberation. He died by self-starvation at age 72 (c. 468 b.c.e.) in Pava, a village near Patna, where Jains come each year on pilgrimages or during festivals. The Jains believe that Mahavira is now in a state of bliss (isatpragbhara). In the fi rst century after Mahavira’s death the Jains grew slowly. Their chief rivals were the Ajivikas. Their growth began in the period of the Mauryan Empire. The fi rst Maurya emperor, Chandragupta (c. 317–293 b.c.e.) supported the Jains and eventually became a Jain monk. About this time there was a schism in the Jain movements. Since the death of Mahavira, “pontiffs” called Ganadharas (supporters of the communities) led them. The 11th ganadhara, a monk called Bhadrabahu, anticipating a famine in northern India, led a group of followers into southern India. Many monks refused to follow him south. Those remaining behind were led by a teacher named Sthulabhadra. When the famine ended, the monks who had returned from the south discovered J 217 that the Jains who had remained in the north had adopted a number of questionable practices, the most heterodox of which was the wearing of white robes. To complicate matters the only person still living who knew perfectly the unwritten sacred texts of Jainism was Bhadrabahu. To deal with the controversial religious practices Sthulabhadra called a council of monks; however, Bhadrabahu did not attend. Eventually he moved to Nepal because of his horror and disgust at the “corruptions” that had entered the Jain community. In the end the Jain canon was written from the defective memory of Sthulabhadra and other leading monks as the Anga (Limbs). The Jain community then separated into two sects. The Shvetambaras were the “White-Clad” monks who wore white robes. The Digambaras were the “Sky- Clad,” or naked, monks. Despite these outward differences Jain doctrine remained basically the same for both groups. The Digambaras sect is usually found in warm south India. Their practice of Jain nudity proclaims a break with human bondage to the world. The Jain canon of scripture differs between the Shvetambaras and Digambaras. In addition to the canonical writings there is a considerable body of devotional or inspiration literature. These writings are nonsidered as sacred scripture but are cherished for their pious themes. During the time of the Middle Ages the Jain faithful produced an enormous body of non-canonical sacred literature known as the Puranas (Legends), which were modeled after Hindu forms. The Puranas tell long stories of the 24 Tirthankaras and other Jains who lived meritorious lives. In addition, Jain scholars produced works on mathematics, poetics, politics, and other subjects. The corpus of Jain-cherished works was produced in several Indian vernaculars besides Sanskrit. After the arrival of the British some Jain works were produced in English. The Sthanakvais sect of Jainism formed in the 1700s. Sthanakvais oppose all temples and rituals. They claim that worship can be done anywhere simply with inward meditation. The core of Jain doctrine is the teaching that every living thing is an eternal soul (jiva) that has become trapped by matter in a physical body by involvement in worldly activities. Salvation can be found by freeing the soul from matter so that it can return to its original pristine state. The Jains believe that each jiva is reincarnated in many bodies before it is fi nally freed. After being freed, it exists eternally in a state of perfect knowledge and bliss. The doctrine of ahimsa (nonviolence, or respect for life) teaches Jains that all life is sacred. To avoid harming any living creature, even the smallest insect, Jains avoid agricultural work and related activities. Ahimsa teaches Jains to be strict vegetarians. The Jain doctrine of ahimsa has infl uenced many people, including Mohandas Gandhi. They will also strain drinking water through a piece of cloth to avoid swallowing living things. Death by starvation is the ultimate of Jain practice as the way to cross the ford to bliss. Scholars have noted that the Jain views on the soul are close to the early Sankhya school of Hindu philosophy. Jains do not believe in a supreme God, in gods nor in goddesses, rather they believe in the divinity dwelling in each soul. But they do believe that there is a life after the escape from karma. This means they appear to practice an atheistic religion but actually venerate the Supreme Spirit in liberated souls. When released from the cycle of karmic rebirths, the soul enters a state of bliss in lokapurusha. See also Indus civilization; Sakyas. Further reading: Brown, W. Norman. The Story of Kalaka: Texts, History, Legends and Miniature Paintings of the Svetambara Jain Hagiographical Work, “The Kalakacaryakatha.” Baltimore, MD: Lord Baltimore Press, 1933; Cort, John E. Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Culture in Indian History. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998; Dundas, Paul. The Jains. New York: Routledge, 1992; Hertel, Johannes. On the Literature of the Shevetambaras of Gujarat. Leipzig: Markert and Petters, 1922; Jain, Kailash Chand. Lord Mahavira and His Times. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass, 1974; Jaina, Jyotiprasada. Religion and Culture of the Jains. New Delhi, India: Bharatiya Jnanpith Publication, 1975; Lalwani, Kastur Chand. Sramana Bhagavan Mahavira: Life and Doctrine. Calcutta, India: Minerva Associates, 1975; Mahavira, A. Ghosh. Jaina Art and Architecture. New Delhi, India: Bharatiya Jnanpith, 1974; Shah, Natubhai. Jainism: The World of Conquerors. 2 vols. Sussex Academic Press, 1998; Tobias, Michael. Life Force: The World of Jainism. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1991. Andrew J. Waskey Jerome (c. 347–c. 419 c.e.) scholar Jerome was a scripture scholar, translator, ascetic, spiritual adviser, church father, and Doctor of the Church. Jerome was born Eusebius Hieronymus into a prosperous Christian family at Stridon in Dalmatia. At age 12 he was sent to Rome to study the liberal arts under the famed grammarian Aelius Donatus. After about 218 Jerome six years of education, around 366 c.e., Jerome was baptized at age 19. In his 20th year Jerome continued his studies at Treves (Trier, Germany), where he was introduced to monasticism. From here he journeyed around 370 to Aquileia, where he joined a group of ascetics, including Rufi nus and Chromatius, under Bishop Valerian. Several years later Jerome set out for the East, staying fi rst at Antioch, where he mastered Greek and began his lifelong study of the Bible. He lived for several years (c. 375–377) as a hermit in the desert region of Chalcis in Syria, where he also began studying Hebrew. Back at Antioch, Jerome was ordained a priest (with no pastoral jurisdiction) by Bishop Paulinus in 379 and was introduced to biblical interpretation through the lectures of Apollinaris of Laodicea. Jerome traveled with Bishop Paulinus to the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381, where he met the Cappadocian theologians Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. He then accompanied Paulinus to Rome, where from 382 to 385 he served as secretary to Pope Damasus and became the spiritual counselor of a group of Roman noblewomen, including Paula and her daughter Eustochium. During this period Jerome translated Greek patristic texts, particularly those of Origen, and began work on a new Latin translation of the Bible. After the death of Damasus in December 384 and the election of Siricius as bishop of Rome, Jerome departed for the East with Paula and others. They eventually settled in Bethlehem in 386, where they founded a double monastery of men and women. Jerome spent the remainder of his life here, devoting himself to scripture study, translating, and writing. Jerome’s voluminous writings fall into four broad categories, namely, translations and studies of the Bible, polemical treatises, historical works, and letters. Translations and studies of the Bible represent Jerome’s most signifi cant and infl uential writings. He is known primarily for his new Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, which became the accepted text in the Latin West during the Middle Ages. Jerome’s work on the Vulgate began, at the request of Pope Damasus, with a revised version of the Gospels based on Old Latin and Greek texts. He began working on the Old Testament by revising the Old Latin based on the Septuagint (that is, the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced by Jewish scholars and used in the early church). His increasing familiarity with the original Hebrew, however, led him to doubt the accuracy of the Septuagint and convinced him of the necessity of basing his new translation entirely on what he called veritas Hebraica, or “Hebrew truth.” Although Jerome himself was not able to produce a fresh translation of every biblical book, his associates and other scholars after him completed this massive project. In addition to translation, Jerome was also interested in biblical interpretation. In this vein he wrote commentaries on many biblical books (including all of the minor and major prophets), and composed and delivered a series of homilies for the religious community at Bethlehem (based mainly on the Psalms and Gospels). Polemical treatises constitute the second major category of Jerome’s writings. These works, often teeming with bitter and abusive invective, were intended either to combat various heresies or to defend himself against the charge of heresy. Jerome’s work in this area grew out of his profound faith in the Catholic Church and its apostolic authority, on the one hand, and his fi rm conviction that heresy is destructive to Christian unity, on the other. In treatises against Helvidius, Jovinian, Vigilantius, and the Pelagians, Jerome defended the perpetual virginity of Mary, the virgin birth of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth, the superiority of celibacy over marriage, prayer to the saints, devotion to the relics of martyrs and saints, original sin, and the necessity of infant baptism. The third category of Jerome’s writings is historical works. Jerome either translated or composed several historical treatises related to his study of the biblical text. First, around 380 he translated the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea, adding to its contents and carrying it forward to his own day. About a decade later Jerome translated and revised Eusebius’s Onomasticon, an inventory of biblical places, and produced a dictionary of biblical proper names. Around 392 Jerome published his work On Famous Men, a historical survey of the lives and writings of 135 authors (mostly Christian) from St. Peter to himself. Jerome also wrote a Book of Hebrew Questions (a linguistic, historical, and geographical discussion of Genesis) and several “lives” of ascetics. Finally, Jerome wrote more than 150 letters that we know of relating to biblical interpretation, monasticism, the clergy, virgins, widows, and his own translation practices. In an important correspondence with Augustine of Hippo between 394 and 419, the two churchmen vigorously discussed the authority of the Septuagint and Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew. Jerome’s Vulgate, his scriptural commentaries, and his translation of Eusebius’s Chronicle made him a major bridge fi gure in the transition to the European Middle Ages. His views on the monastic life, celibacy, Mary, and the cult of the saints became central to medieval Catholic piety. On account of his elegant Latin, his strong invective, and his vast knowledge, Jerome Jerome 219 became a favorite of Renaissance scholars. In 1516 Erasmus published the fi rst successful critical biography of Jerome along with his edition of Jerome’s works. He has been considered a Doctor of the Church since the eighth century, and the Council of Trent (16th century) described Jerome as “the greatest Doctor in explicating Sacred Scripture.” His feast day is celebrated on September 30. See also Bible translations; Cappadocians; Greek Church; Latin Church; pilgrimage. Further reading: Kamesar, Adam. Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993; Kelly, J. N. D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1975; Murphy, F. X., ed. A Monument to Saint Jerome: Essays on Some Aspects of His Life, Works and Infl uence. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1952; Rebenich, Stefan. Jerome. London: Routledge, 2002; White, Carolinne. The Correspondence, 394– 419, between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990. Franklin T. Harkins Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth (c. 4 b.c.e.–30 c.e.) religious leader The independent evidence—apart from the New Testament— that Jesus actually lived falls into three categories: Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Jewish-Christian writings outside the Bible. Jewish evidence, surprisingly, is rather sparse. First of all, there are no contemporary archaeological or epigraphic remains that prove Jesus’ existence. What research has found corroborates the background of the New Testament but does not confi rm its hero. Second, there are two literary records—the Talmud and Josephus—that speak about Jesus from a Jewish perspective, but both of these have been called into question. JEWISH EVIDENCE The Talmud speaks of Jesus in derogatory ways, but it is written centuries after his life and undoubtedly refl ects a fi ercely polemical perspective. The historian Josephus writes extensively about the Jews of his fi rstcentury c.e. generation, but only in one short passage does he mention Jesus. In the Testimonium Flavianum (Testimony of Flavius) Josephus assesses Jesus as nothing less than a prodigy. But as soon as he fi nishes his statement, he never writes of Jesus again. Historians now believe that the paragraph is a total or partial interpolation, added by later scribes as it passed down through Christian monastic hands. GRECO-ROMAN HISTORIES Contemporary Greco-Roman evidence is also sparse, though there are brief and uncomprehending remarks by Tacitus and Suetonius about the reputation of one “Christus.” The evidence, however, is enough to warrant that Jesus actually lived and was rather despised by the prevailing imperial authorities. There are ancient references to Jesus in religious writings outside of the New Testament. The main document that merits attention from historians is the Gospel of Thomas. The problem is that the date of Thomas cannot be ascertained. The date most often given is 100 c.e., and most likely it is much later since it was found among late Gnostic documents and seems either to use the Gospels of the New Testament or to counter their teachings. Certain parts of Thomas probably do have gospel-era or earlier origins. It is understandable that there would be little external evidence about Jesus. He probably was an embarrassment to the Jews, who would not dignify him by reviving his memory. In fact, few Jewish writings survive at all during this period because of the Roman invasions. Certainly, this is the time when Jews would have been debating the claims of Jesus and his followers. The Romans would not have cared about Jesus, an obscure nuisance who neither founded cities nor led armies. Nonetheless, the fact that he is something of a footnote to accepted contemporary writers means that he lived. One other fact outside the Bible supports his existence. The Christian movement spread like wildfi re in spite of strong opposition, and a letter from 110 c.e. addressed to the emperor Trajan describes the tenacity of the Christian resolution to believe in Jesus. Many historians use such evidence to show that only a real person and a real event (like a resurrection from the dead) could have inspired the spreading of faith over such distances in such a short period of time. Otherwise, their testimonies show signs of a mass delusion on the scale of which is less believable than the religious explanation. THE NEW TESTAMENT STORY To understand the “real Jesus” the historian is left with the New Testament. Two warnings must be issued before taking up the Bible as an information book. First, the stories about Jesus are not to be taken as history or biography in the modern sense. The life of Jesus is 220 Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth told in the Gospels, but this genre is meant to persuade the reader as well as to inform. In other words, the Gospels already have an interpretation based on faith when they report the “mere” facts. The second warning is that the Gospels represent in their fi nal form at least three levels of information: fi rst, there is an oral tradition that reports eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ life; second, there is the written account of the oral tradition; third, there is the fi nal editing by the community of those who believe. These two warnings serve to make the reader understand that it is impossible to separate out the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. It drove some scholars to despair that any historical facts could be gleaned from the Bible concerning faith. One of the most infl uential fi gures of the 20th century, the German Rudolf Bultmann, believed only a courageous will to believe could justify biblical faith. His faith came perilously close to Christian Dualism (Gnosticism). By a variety of historical tools, however, some basic facts can be ascertained. Moreover, other points can be received if the Bible reader is willing to accept that faith does not compromise the truth value of the information. Jesus’ identity can be broken down into the man Jesus was on earth, the mentor Jesus was in his ministry, and the message Jesus lived out and taught. JESUS THE MAN Jesus was born a Jew, the son of a Jewish woman, and observed Jewish customs. He lived in Galilee and Judaea, his childhood was inconspicuous, and the record about his early manhood is silent. Around the age of 30 he began his public life as an itinerant preacher. When he was on his own he attracted disciples and large crowds of curiosity seekers. His career was cut short when Jewish leaders arrested him, and then he was tried and condemned by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as a criminal. Because he was accused of being an insurrectionist, he was given the capital punishment of crucifi xion. Jesus was the religious devotee of his fi rst cousin named John the Baptist. He lived with John in the wilderness and was baptized by him in the Jordan River near Jericho. Apparently Jesus learned apocalyptic ideas from John and probably maintained some of his cousin’s practices, such as an austere lifestyle and baptism for his followers. When John was imprisoned, Jesus began his independent ministry. JESUS THE MENTOR The main proclamation of Jesus focused on the Kingdom of God. Jesus seemed to be extending this idea as he learned and adapted it from his cousin John. The Kingdom of God was not a physical domain, but its power took hold whenever he spoke or acted authoritatively. The kingdom had both a present and future orientation. It seemed to be completed in the future, yet it was visible in the present through acts of power called miracles. The miracles demonstrated that Jesus was preaching a real kingdom, and they also attracted huge crowds. As Jesus did miracles, faith in him increased. Several other messages emerged from the teaching of Jesus. First, Jesus distinguished himself from his main competitors, the Pharisees, through his radical teachings on the need to love (even as far as one’s enemies) and through his radical discipleship demands (following Jesus even to one’s death). The closest disciples, called the apostles, formed a close-knit social unit that became the replacement for family and property. Second, Jesus did not urge the rejection of the Jewish law, or Torah; if anything he strengthened its moral imperatives, while lessening its ceremonial aspects. LIFE, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS The followers of Jesus were so “converted” by the life of Jesus that they traveled far and wide with his message and risked their lives for its truthfulness. The presuppositions of the New Testament—probably at every level of its formulation based on the very early writings of the apostle Paul—include the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus, and this was also the driving force for the spread of the Jesus movement. Such enthusiasm is Although Jesus attracted many disciples, he was tried and condemned by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as a criminal. Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth 221 simply unthinkable without taking into account Jesus’s resurrection after his ignominious death on a cross. At fi rst the followers of Jesus expressed the identity of Jesus in typically Jewish ways, that is, he was anointed messiah, authoritative lord, suffering servant, and “prophet like Moses.” The stature of Jesus grew over time and refl ection, especially when the Christological controversies occurred in the third century c.e. and climaxed in the councils of the fourth and fi fth centuries. However, the supernatural element of the identity of Jesus had abundant fodder in the writings of the New Testament. See also apocalypticism, Jewish and Christian; Apostles, Twelve; Christianity, early; Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); messianism; Nicaea, Council of; Roman Empire; Roman historians; Rome: government; Servant Songs of Isaiah. Further reading: Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans, 2007; Dunn, J. D. G. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003; Flusser, David, in collaboration with R. Steven Notley. Jesus. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes, 1997; Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew. Edinburg, TX: Anchor Bible Reference, 1991; Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. Mark F. Whitters Jewish revolts Josephus best tells the fi rst military struggle of the Jews against Rome in his Jewish War history, but a background history can be ascertained from the New Testament and the Pseudepigrapha. Both sources tell of a fractured political and religious society, at fi rst ruled by a local ruler (Herod) and then ruled by imperial agents of varying qualities (for example, Pontius Pilate was offensive to Jews). Taxes were high, and Romans tended to discriminate against non-Hellenized Jews. Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls testify to many sectarian divisions within the Jewish faith. Josephus speaks of public discontent taking the form of riots, banditry, and fanaticism. When the war broke out under Nero’s reign in 66 c.e., Jews at fi rst were united and held the upper hand. Political intrigue at home kept the Romans from reasserting themselves for two years. The tide quickly turned with Vespasian, and later his son Titus, in charge of the Roman legions. The traditional date for the destruction of the Temple is a solemn fast day for observant Jews, also the very date that the Romans burned the city and desecrated the Temple Mount 60 years later. Only the Western “wailing” Wall of the Temple was preserved. When Jews were driven out of Jerusalem in 70 c.e., they took refuge at Masada, a wilderness cliff fortress. There, after a long siege, all 1,100 holdouts recognized their certain fates and committed suicide. After the failure of this revolt Jews found themselves without a temple, without clear religious leadership, and without a political and economic infrastructure. Their ruling council, the Sanhedrin, was disbanded; sacrifi ce and pilgrimage in the city of Jerusalem was eliminated or drastically reduced; and the Roman legionnaires were given the most valuable and sacred of the Jewish land. After a certain period of time even the historical record is silent. Hostility against Romans must have simmered, however, because later historical records tell of a second uprising of Jews against Rome, beginning outside Palestine. Fighting fi rst began in Mesopotamia and Judaea, but then open warfare broke out in Egypt, Cyprus, and Libya. The Roman emperor Trajan responded by dispatching his trusted and ruthless generals Martius Turbo and Lucius Quietus. Romans retaliated by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout the troubled areas. The Great Synagogue of Alexandria, one of the wonders of the world, was razed. In Cyprus it is said that no Jew remained alive. The hated general Quietus was made governor of Judaea. The next period of time was presided over by the emperor Hadrian. The main Roman history comes from Dio Crassus, some 100 years later and incomplete, and from very late Jewish and Christian sources. Hadrian took a different tack than his predecessor Trajan. He dismissed Quietus as governor and executed him. He appointed two Jews as his liaisons and openly encouraged the redevelopment of the city of Jerusalem. According to the rabbis, the Romans gave permission for the rebuilding of the Temple. Then Hadrian’s conciliatory attitude toward the Jews changed. First, he proposed that the Jewish Temple should be built somewhere else than the Temple Mount. Then his daughter was murdered, and his Jewish liaisons bore the blame. Hadrian took strong measures against the Jews in rapid succession: He forbade outside Jews from returning to Palestine, forbade Jewish religious observances, and decided to erect a pagan temple where the Jewish Temple was. Intense negative reaction laid the conditions for the third revolt. Only the Jews and the Christians mention the name of the instigator of this war. His nom de guerre was Bar 222 Jewish revolts Kokhba (Shimon bar Kosiba). Bar Kokhba was at fi rst remarkably successful: He defeated the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem and then chased the Romans out of the important areas of Judaea. He attracted some 400,000 Jewish recruits, who then defeated the Roman military reinforcements brought in from Syria, Egypt, and Arabia. Within one year he recaptured 985 villages and constructed 50 fortresses. Bar Kokhba proved himself an able bureaucrat in the early days of his government, setting up administrative systems and land division. He also restamped Roman coins with the mottos “Freedom of Jerusalem” and “Freedom of Israel.” In the face of such an emerging state Hadrian had to send in his best general, Sextus Julius Severus, recalling him from Britain. Because Bar Kokhba had learned techniques of guerrilla warfare, Severus had to fi ght patiently and slowly. Severus put down the insurgency largely by starvation, siege warfare, and propaganda, because the Jews had taken refuge in isolated terrains and in rugged natural strongholds, such as caves and cliffs. When Jerusalem was taken in 135 c.e., the insurgents made their last stand in Beth-Ter, a well-protected town southwest of Jerusalem. Though they withstood the Romans for a long time, in the end the townspeople ultimately turned on Bar Kokhba and killed him. After the siege Hadrian razed Jerusalem and made good on his promise to put a Roman temple on the Temple Mount. And he decreed that no Jew could ever again enter the city or even lay eyes on it from afar. After the Bar Kokhba war, Jewish and Roman relations entered into a long period of mutual enmity. In the beginning of the third revolt Bar Kokhba was so impressive in battle that messianic speculation swirled about him. Many rabbis apparently openly embraced him as the messiah. Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, who approved of the revolt, applied to his name a messianic title: Bar Kokhba, “the son of the star.” Probably most of the Palestinian sages had similar views at fi rst. One noted rabbi demurred, saying, “Akiba, grass will sooner grow on your chin, before the Messiah comes.” Akiba died along with an estimated 500,000 others in Palestine when Bar Kokhba was defeated. Countless others, including many rabbis, were sold into slavery. Rarely is the name Bar Kokhba used in Jewish sources, while it is the normal name given in Christian sources. Rabbinic texts bitterly refer to him as Bar Koziba (son of the lie), a pun on his name bar Kosiba. See also Hellenization; Herods; Israel and Judah; Roman Empire; Rome: government; Zakkai, Yohanan ben. Further reading: Reznick, L. The Mystery of Bar Kokhba. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996; Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001; Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under Roman Rule. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1981. Mark F. Whitters Jezebel See Ahab and Jezebel. Job and theodicy Job (c. 600–400 b.c.e.) is the principal character of the biblical book that bears his name. A prologue introduces the book’s readers to Job and describes decisions made in a parallel universe, that of a celestial court in which Yahweh, the head of the pantheon according to ancient Israelite belief, holds ultimate power. The heart of the book consists of a series of dialogue cycles between Job and three friends in which Job appeals to Yahweh for vindication, the responses by Yahweh to Job’s appeals, followed by a brief response by Job. Speeches by a young interloper, Elihu, serve as a kind of intermezzo before Yahweh’s response to Job’s appeal. The fall of Bar Kokhba’s besieged city occurred in 135 c.e. Only the west “wailing” wall of the temple was preserved. Job and theodicy 223 Job’s response to the experience of undeserved suffering is the focus of the book. The book’s resolution of the problem of Job’s suffering, the role assigned to God in bringing about Job’s suffering, and God’s reply to Job’s charges against God, have challenged and baffl ed generations of interpreters. The book describes the titanic struggle of a human being with the meaning of his suffering and what it says about him and the world of which he is a part. Even interpreters who do not believe in God or in the God of the book of Job have praised the book of Job as a literary and theological masterpiece. The infl uence of the book of Job on art, literature, drama, and philosophy, wherever Judaism and Christianity have been potent cultural forces, has been far reaching. SUFFERING AND VINDICATION In the prologue Job, a man of exemplary behavior, is meted out suffering through no fault of his own. One of God’s angels (“the Satan” or “the accuser” in the original Hebrew) has cast aspersions on Job. God takes up Job’s defense. The matter is put to the test. If Job suffers every manner of affl iction but does not thereby hold God in contempt, Job will be vindicated. God allows the Satan to empty Job’s life of whatever makes it meaningful, but the Satan must also act as Job’s guardian angel and save Job’s life from a premature conclusion: “He is in your power, but his life you must protect.” No one in the Job story—neither Job, nor Job’s wife, nor Job’s friends, nor Elihu—knows about God’s wager with the accusing angel. The reader knows, but despite this knowledge, an explanation for Job’s suffering is not given. After all, Job fails the test. He cracks under the pressure of his suffering. He begins by speaking of God approvingly, even after he loses his children and all that he possesses. But when the suffering literally gets under his skin, Job maligns God again and again, directly and indirectly. “Let there be darkness,” exclaims Job. Job colors the world and God’s relationship to it with the same dark hues that have invaded his personal existence. He considers God to be his worst enemy and the enemy of all humankind. When Job charges God with all manner of inappropriate behavior, Job’s friends defend God from Job’s charges by maligning Job. Job must have done something to deserve his fate. Job is incensed by his friends’ accusations. So malicious are their words that Job ends up contradicting the God-accusing thrust of his early speeches and insists instead on God’s righteousness and wisdom. In the end he needs God to be a righteous judge; otherwise, his friends will not be condemned, and he will not be justifi ed. Job refers his case to God. God replies to Job furiously, in a whirlwind: “How dare Job darken God’s counsel! Does Job even know what darkness is? Only God, of all living beings, has walked in the recesses of the deep.” God confi rms Job’s worst fears. God’s counsel, or design, really does include unimaginable terror. The world God has created is not anthropocentric at all. It is full of awesome creatures, useless or inimical to human beings, creatures in which God takes immense delight. God’s knowledge and power, not God’s justice, take up most of God’s replies to Job. We sense the bewilderment of Job, who has suffered without cause under God’s hand. “I am of contemptible worth; what can I answer you? I clap my hand to my mouth,” and “I recant and I change my mind amidst dirt and ashes.” The plot thickens. God acquits Job and vindicates Job before his friends. Job was right to defend himself before God. Job was guilty of putting God in the wrong in order to put himself in the right, the point of God’s reproof of Job before acquitting him, but Job’s forthrightness before God is ultimately held to his credit. In the end God responds by giving Job twice what he had before. He goes on to live a life of legendary proportions and delight in his children’s children. ANTI-THEODICY A theodicy is an attempt to justify the ways of God to human beings. The book of Job is an anti-theodicy. According to the book of Job, unjustifi able suffering takes place in the world. Those who claim otherwise “do not speak the truth about [God].” Defense of man before God (anthropodicy), not defense of God (theodicy), is appropriate when suffering occurs. Job’s friends should have defended Job against God rather than God against Job. The apologetics of Job’s friends do not do justice to the status of the sufferer in God’s sight. An authentic theodicy will vindicate the sufferer even at God’s expense, if the book of Job is taken as a model. For in it God vindicates Job even as he puts an end to Job’s revolt against him. There are other works of ancient literature outside of the Jewish Bible that attempt to deal with questions of theodicy. Examples include the Babylonian Theodicy and “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom” from Mesopotamian literature. Other similar biblical works include Psalms 37, 49, 73; Proverbs 30, and Qohelet (Ecclesiastes), 4 Baruch, and 2 Baruch. See also prophets; Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha. 224 Job and theodicy Further reading: Laato, Antti, and Johannes C. De Moor, eds. Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2003; Newsom, Carol A. “The Book of Job.” In Leander E. Keck, et al., eds. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996. Perdue, Leo G., and W. Clark Gispin, eds.The Voice from the Whirlwind: Interpreting the Book of Job. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1992. John Hobbins John the Baptist (fi rst century c.e.) religious leader One of Judaism’s divergent voices raised in the turbulent fi rst century c.e. was that of John the Baptist. He is most known for his role in the life of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth as reported in the New Testament. But the writings of Josephus make clear that John was a leader and hero in his own right, and even the New Testament indicates that his following extended to later times and places. Many populist religious leaders arose in John’s generation who promised deliverance from corrupt religion, brutal armies, and unjust governments. Their expectations were that the miraculous events of their biblical ancestors would be reenacted in their own times. They were able to mobilize Jews to organize and prepare for history’s conclusion. Today theologians call this focus on the future and on the end “eschatology” and the visionary experiences connected with it apocalypticism. A few examples give the tenor of John’s time. At the time of Pontius Pilate a Samaritan prophet claimed to be a new Moses. A few years later a certain Theudas brought his devotees to the Jordan so that the waters would part for them. An Egyptian Jewish prophet rallied people to the Mount of Olives where they would see the collapse of the walls of Jerusalem and so claim the city for their own. Oracles and heavenly signs were publicized that supposedly told of the ruin of the city or of its rulers. Whenever the Romans or the Jewish authorities learned of these prophets and predictions, they rooted them out violently. John was born of priestly descent to parents of an advanced age. Surprisingly, he abandoned his priestly patrimony and joined this eschatological movement. Perhaps even as a young man he took up his abode in the wilderness near Jericho and gained a reputation for fi ery preaching and for practicing a ritual known as baptism. For the rest of his life his priestly birth did not fi gure in his vocation. When he did not adopt his birthright as a priest, he put on the mantle of prophet. As a prophet, he most resembled the biblical Elijah, an ascetic, recluse, and visionary. John was an ascetic himself, and the New Testament says that his diet was locusts and wild honey, and his clothing was hides and a leather belt. In other words, he lived off the land and did not give thought to his future. As a recluse, he gave up wife and home, lived in the open air, and did his preaching in the wilderness. Undoubtedly, he believed that this isolation allowed him to maintain his independence from religious and political authority. As a visionary, he preached a new approach to religion through baptism. John believed that this rite was more important than lineal descent from Abraham, the normal entrance into the Jewish faith. Preparation for water baptism involved a decision to give up sinful practices and to practice virtue in all relationships, as well as the renunciation of any privilege that came with birth or election. Baptism, as practiced by John, was different from other types of water rituals among the eschatological groups because it was once for a lifetime. In the temple, for example, cleansings were frequent and required a constant supply of water, either from cisterns or streams. Apparently, for John the water must have symbolized more than cleansing, but a death and rebirth. Jesus, who said that his approaching death was a baptism that he needed to undergo, articulated the idea that baptism implied death. Later Christians, writing in the New Testament, use the image of the water to suggest new birth, or rising again from death. If the conventional belief was that one was Jewish by birth, John was making a radical reform by making spiritual birth the new prerequisite. Later Christians who evangelized the Gentile world used baptism. The fact that John spoke urgently of the coming judgment and unquenchable fi re also might suggest that somehow he believed that the nature of the water (its cleansing, its vitality) protected his followers from the eschatological destruction. Fire was a common metaphor for the fi nal days of judgment. John started a movement, but he did not develop a stable community the way other eschatological leaders did. It therefore was quite different from Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls community, and it was even different from the itinerant society that fl ourished around Jesus. John’s ascetic and reclusive life did not allow anything other than temporary stays with him. Nonetheless, masses of Jewish people fl ooded out to hear him in the wilderness, and prostitutes, peasants, and politicians were affected. The fact that he stirred Josephus and that Jesus received baptism from him shows how diverse and penetrating was his infl uence. The eschatological context of John’s preaching included an emphasis on “one who is to come,” a designation that the New Testament keys on for the messiahship John the Baptist 225 of Jesus of Nazareth. The New Testament portrays Jesus as the younger cousin of John, and John, as an Elijah-like precursor for Jesus. Because of Jesus’s stature in the New Testament, it is surprising that he submits to John’s baptism. Christians throughout the ages debate the signifi - cance of the baptism of Jesus, but one thing is clear: John the Baptist acts as mentor for Jesus, and John’s shadow is cast over Jesus’s entire mission. John’s infl uence does not rest with Jesus or even with later Christians. Stories in the New Testament speak of John’s disciples being found as far away as Ephesus. Justin Martyr mentions those who regarded John as the messiah. Even today there are sects of ancient pedigree that claim that their roots lie in John the Baptist (such as the Mandaeans and the Manichaeans). In the Greek Church John becomes a standard icon (religious artwork) in religious art as summing up the message of the Jewish scriptures. John’s popularity with wide segments of the public did not permit him to escape trouble with the authorities. In this sense he really did play the role of Elijah, the northern kingdom prophet who condemned the political authorities of his day. He was imprisoned and executed for his bold criticism of Herod’s government, specifi cally of the moral life of Herod Antipas. In the wake of John the Baptist’s death Jesus launched out on his own mission. See also Christianity, early; Herods; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); messianism; monasticism; prophets. Further reading: Burke, Alexander J. John the Baptist. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2005; Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew: Vol. 1. Anchor Bible Reference Book. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Mark F. Whitters Jomon culture The Jomon culture of Japan was a pottery-using Neolithic or Mesolithic society that fl ourished approximately 10,500–300 b.c.e. Most archaeologists accept a division into six periods within Jomon culture, which are the incipient, initial, early, middle, late, and fi nal periods. The term Jomon means “cord mark” and was coined by the 19th-century American archaeologist Edward S. Morse to describe the pottery of that culture. The Jomons produced possibly the world’s fi rst pottery, of a particularly innovative and vibrant style. Early pottery sites have been found in the Russian Far East and in China, and it is possible that resulting from lower sea levels during the Jomon period, land migration might explain the replication. Pottery in Japan has been found at the same level as shale arrowheads, demonstrating the simultaneity of the two forms of production and predating development in other parts of the world. Shards from a site at Odai Yamamoto in the north of Honshu indicate the vessel was used for boiling, and this has provided material suitable for carbon dating testing. The melting of ice during the period led to the isolation of the Japanese islands and, ultimately, the creation of the Japanese state, although this did not happen for a considerable period. Maritime activities such as fi shing and collecting shellfi sh were important, although the Jomon also hunted land animals and gathered plants. By the end of the Jomon period, people had begun to organize rice paddy farming. Evidence of environmental change across the islands of Japan is accompanied by changes in diet and hunting patterns. This includes the extinction, presumably by hunting, of some large mammals. Jomon culture is unlikely to have coincided with the presence in the Japanese islands of either mammoths or elephants. Jomon people were primarily sedentary, although they may not have remained in the same site the whole year round, and they were culturally complex. Villages supplemented their diets with chestnuts and other plant products, some of which were cultivated in early forms of agriculture. The presence of decorated ceramics suggests the possibility of trade and economic exchange, as well as the gendered distinction of labor. There has been some speculation that Jomon culture people reached northwestern America, but there is no evidence for this. The Jomon culture was succeeded by the Yayoi culture, which is dated from 250 b.c.e. to 350 c.e. Further reading: Habu, Junko. “Jomon Sedentism and Intersite Variability: Collectors of the Early Jomon Moroiso Phase in Japan.” Arctic Anthropology. (v.33/2, 1996); ———. Ancient Jomon of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Okada, Atsuko. “Maritime Adaptations in Hokkaido.” Arctic Anthropology (v.35/1, 1998). John Walsh Josephus, Flavius (c. 37–c. 100 c.e.) historian There is no historical account for the period that saw the emergence of Christianity and Judaism from the land of Palestine like that of Josephus. For one thing no Greco-Roman historian so directly and immediately addresses the struggle between Roman Empire and Jewish 226 Jomon culture commonwealth. For another thing there is no one else to corroborate and interrogate the issues and personalities of the New Testament, except for Jewish sources who wrote generations later. Josephus was born of priestly descent around 37 c.e., but his curiosity led him in early life to experiment with diverse and even countercultural Jewish expressions. First, he tried the philosophy of the Essenes. Though he was favorably impressed with them, he left them. Then he joined up with an ascetic wilderness group led by a charismatic leader named Banus. Perhaps this group exhibited something that Josephus found attractive among the Essenes. All these experiences came before the age of 19. Then he took up an interest in the Pharisees, another Jewish sect, though his later commentaries show that his involvement with them was strained. A journey to Rome in 63 c.e. triggered a respect for the Roman Empire, one that became evident in his later actions. When he returned, war broke out between his countrymen and Rome, and Josephus reluctantly and futilely led a detachment of Galileans against the Roman army. His troops were overwhelmed, and his surviving cohorts made a pact to die rather than surrender. Driven to the point of committing suicide, Josephus refused and fl ed. He presented himself to Vespasian, the Roman general, as an ally, translator, and guide. He projected himself as another Jeremiah, the prophet who led his people at the time of the Babylonian invasion, through his preaching in Jerusalem against the uprising and through his prophecies about Vespasian and Roman destiny. Josephus’s decision to side with Rome was motivated by religion as well as by an instinct for survival. However, he was considered a traitor by most of his Jewish fellows. At the end of the campaign Josephus was honored in Rome with a country villa, special privileges, and friendship with the Roman emperor. He never returned to his home country, much less to his wife and family. He spent the rest of his days as a historian, writing at least four compositions. The fi rst was the Jewish War, an account of the events leading up to the diffi culties of 70 c.e. Josephus blames the war on a small band of Jewish fanatics. The second is Against Apion, a defense of Jewish culture and historical pedigree. The third is the longest, a history of the Jews from creation to his own time (around 90 c.e.), called Jewish Antiquities. This work is modeled after other Greco-Roman histories and skillfully combines secular and religious virtues in the telling of the Jewish story. Finally, he writes his own Autobiography, largely as a defense for his conduct during the war. To the last of his sentences, however, he is an apologist for his Jewish people and their cause. His histories are assessed as factual and fair. While he was in Rome he had access to offi cial records and relied on other sources, like Nicolas of Damascus, a historian of Herod’s court. He had fi rsthand knowledge of the land, the personalities, the issues, and the battles. Many of his own descriptions can serve as a background for such New Testament persons as the Herods, the priests, the Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist, James (“brother” of Jesus), and perhaps of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth. Jerome touted Josephus as the “Greek Livy” for his masterful history telling. It is true that Josephus’s powerful voice has persuaded Christians over the ages about the historical veracity of their scripture. For this reason Josephus was preserved in Christian circles, not Jewish ones; in fact, in certain ancient manuscripts of the Bible, the writings of Josephus have also been appended. But others question his neutrality and impartiality. There are inconsistencies in his descriptions of his leadership during the war and questions as to whether or not he supported the revolt from the beginning. See also apocalypticism, Jewish and Christian; Christianity, early; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); prophets; Roman Empire; Rome: government. Further reading: Feldman, L. H., and Gohei Hata. Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1987; Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in the Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993; Mason, S., et al. Commentary on Flavius Josephus. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2001. Mark F. Whitters Josiah (c. 648–609 b.c.e.) king of Judah The writer of the biblical book of Kings rates Josiah as the highest of all the kings of Judah after David. He is known primarily as a religious reformer, but his vision of Judah motivated political changes, foreign-policy changes, and a measure of reunifi cation with the northern kingdom of Israel (Samaria). He began to reign at the age of eight, when his father Amon was assassinated, and ruled for 31 years. Going back to the time of Hezekiah, Judah had been bullied by Assyria, although the capital had never fallen. His grandfather and father both had made big religious concessions to the Assyrians and to native religious groups. In contrast to his father and grandfather Josiah showed Josiah 227 a pious loyalty to the traditional Judaean faith, perhaps coming under the infl uence of the temple priests in Jerusalem. By the age of 20 he was willing to go public with his religious agenda. He made it clear that he wanted to return to the God of his ancestors and cast away the foreign gods and their worship customs. Such customs included things like child sacrifi ces and fertility rituals. Perhaps he was bold because it was clear that Assyria was going through a civil war, as the Babylonian Chronicle points out; perhaps he knew that the Assyrian ruler Ashurbanipal was too old to conduct a campaign; or perhaps he was encouraged through his communication with Assyria’s rivals in Egypt and Babylon. Gradually Josiah became more and more assertive about his religious goals. He made repairs on the temple; he purged the temple precincts of foreign religions and altars; then he broadened his geographical sweep to include attacks on foreign religious sites in Israel (Samaria). Josiah then discovered a religious law book, often thought to be some form of the biblical book of Deuteronomy with its laws on the temple, orthodox doctrines, and centralized government. Some have speculated that this document was reformulated into some kind of Deuteronomic history, covering the biblical books from Joshua-Kings. The climax of Josiah’s reforms came with an invitation for all the people of Israel and Judah to join together for a celebration of the Passover. In addition to remembering the rite of Israel’s escape from Egypt, Josiah also led the people in rededicating themselves to observing the covenant of Moses. Josiah died when a new pharaoh, Neco II (c. 609- 594 b.c.e.), marched across the coastal plains to challenge Babylonia and Persia as the emerging powers of Mesopotamia. The Bible says that Josiah opposed Neco, interfering with the divine intention for Egypt to have the right of way. The picture is murky, for it is not clear why Josiah stood against Neco, nor why the divine plan favored of Egypt’s passage. Josiah, who the Bible hails as the most faithful of kings, was mortally wounded on the battlefi eld, a casualty of the divine plan. See also Babylon, later periods; Egypt, culture and religion; Medes, Persians, and Elamites. Further reading: Althann, Robert. “Josiah.” in Anchor Bible Dictionary pp. 1,015–1,018. New York: Doubleday, 1992; Sweeney, Marvic A. King Josiah of Judah. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Mark F. Whitters Judah See Israel and Judah. Judah ha-Nasi (c. 130–c. 220 c.e.) religious leader Traditional Jews maintain that Judah ha-Nasi (Judah the Prince) was the sole editor of the Mishnah. This explanation assumes that there was an unbroken line of rabbinic thinking beginning from Hillel (a famous rabbi from the early fi rst century c.e.) and proceeding through Yohanan ben Zakkai and Akiba (another rabbi from the time of Bar Kokhba) to Judah. It is more likely that the Mishnah is the work of more than one writer. The Mishnah probably was compiled during Judah’s days as the patriarch and prince, and he takes a central place in history for this achievement. After the fi asco of Bar Kokhba (132–135 c.e.), it is hard to overestimate Judah’s importance for Palestinian Jews. He consolidated the rabbinic movement under his leadership as patriarch and thus became the leading religious spokesman for the Palestinian Jews. Even the Babylonian Jews, outside the Roman Empire and under the Persian satrap, took refuge in his shadow. The political position he is known for, prince, reached its zenith under his tenure, and he managed to institutionalize it by bequeathing the title (ha-Nasi) to one of his sons. His success with his countrymen and with the occupying Romans is refl ected in the numerous larger-thanlife stories that circulated about him. Legends say that he was a personal friend with Antoninus—probably the later Septimus Severus, if there is any kernel of truth in the stories. His wealth was also fabulous; sources say that his steward was richer than the Persian satrap. At the same time the generosity and almsgiving—at least as told in the rabbinic literature—made him a popular fi gure among the poor. He managed to mollify Jewish hostility toward Rome for having destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple. He eliminated the annual fast commemorating the Temple’s destruction and cancelled rabbinic decrees requiring foreign Jews to contribute to Palestinian causes. He negotiated the return of some land to Jews that the Romans had confi scated. He also standardized the Jewish calendar and eased some of the sabbatical year’s disciplines. He found ways of dealing with the many rabbi leaders by a carrot-and-stick policy. First, he cancelled some of their taxes, and then he took away their power to ordain new rabbis. By such Solomonic measures, the Talmud hailed him as the fi rst since Moses who had “combined Torah and (political) greatness in one place.” 228 Judah Because the Mishnah was written in a dialect evolved from late biblical Hebrew, he revitalized Hebrew for Jews both in and out of Palestine. To this day among all Jews Mishnaic Hebrew is the dominant language of liturgy and prayer. When he died, his tomb became a place of pilgrimage for Jewish devotees. No other Jewish leader so captured the hearts and minds of rabbinic Jews. No other sage was so able to master the oral Torah and apply it to the politics of his day. He combined political shrewdness with religious piety like no other Jewish fi gure in late antiquity. Often in the sources he is simply called “Rabbi” or “the Prince.” See also Antonine emperors; Israel and Judah; Jewish revolts; rome: government. Further reading: Goodblatt, David M. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1994; Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr [Siebeck], 1997. Mark F. Whitters Judaism, early (heterodoxies) After Solomon, king of united Israel and Judah, died c. 922 b.c.e., the northern 10 tribes seceded and reconstituted themselves as the kingdom of Israel. The Assyrians took its capital, Samaria, in 722 b.c.e. The Jewish scriptures states that the Israelites there were deported and replaced by foreigners who worshipped the Israelite god along with their ancestral gods. The exiled Israelites became known as the “Ten Lost Tribes.” Traditional Judaism traces the immigrants to the Samaritans. However, Samaritans say that the biblical priest Eli usurped the high priesthood and set up a false sanctuary at Shiloh (c. 1090 b.c.e.). The tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and part of Levi stayed with the true sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim, near present-day Nablus. Samaritans trace themselves to the loyalists at Mt. Gerizim. Neither view is without objection. Assyrian records suggest that they removed only about one-tenth of the Israelites, and another part of the Jewish Bible indicates that kings of Judah dealt with the northern tribes after the fall of Samaria, without suggesting that the inhabitants were foreigners. The Samaritan view is fi rst attested in medieval sources about 2,000 years after the alleged event. A split between Samaritans and Jews perhaps occurred between the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (464–358 b.c.e.), who were said to have trouble with Samaria, and the time of John Hyrcanus, who destroyed the temple on Mt. Gerizim in 128 b.c.e. There are two versions of the story explaining the split: A great-grandson of the Jewish high priest married the daughter of the Persian governor of Samaria, refused to divorce her, was exiled, and, in the later version, became high priest on Mt. Gerizim. The Gospels of Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles attest the Samaritans’ role in earliest Christianity and their confl ict with Jews. However, when Jews fought the Romans in 66–73 and 132–135 c.e., Samaritans were on both sides. The Samaritan chieftain Baba Rabbah gained independence for his people in the third century c.e. By this time the Samaritans also had their own scripture, a version of the Pentateuch differing from that of the Jews. The conversion of Constantine the Great in 312 occasioned constant Christian persecution of the Samaritans. In 484 and 529 the Samaritans revolted against the Byzantines and lost thousands of their compatriots. The Muslim conquest in the seventh century decreased persecution but made misrule constant, which brought the Samaritan population to 146 by 1917, when Samaritans began to increase their numbers by marrying Jewish women. Nonetheless, there were only 655 Samaritans in 2003. The State of Israel, reversing Jewish tradition, considers them virtually Jewish. The Ebionites were Christians who kept the Torah. The name is derived from Hebrew ‘ebyonim, meaning “poor,” which seems to have been the self-designation of the earliest Christians of Jerusalem. The Ebionites were supposed to descend from these earliest Christians, having fl ed across the Jordan before Jerusalem fell in 70 c.e. Ebionites often are distinguished from the Nazarenes, Jews who purportedly believed in the virginal conception and divinity of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth and the apostleship of Paul. The Ebionites, by contrast, believed that Jesus was biologically the son of Joseph and because of his perfect life was adopted at his baptism by God. They also rejected Paul, animal sacrifi ce, and meat eating, and they highly valued marriage and daily ritual baths. Several apocryphal gospels are linked with the Ebionites, including the Gospel of the Ebionites. Both Ebionites and Nazarenes have been associated with the Samaritans, who call themselves “those who keep [smr] [Torah].” Nsr, from which Nazarene may be derived, also means “keep.” The Ebionites have other similarities to Samaritans, such as a belief in a messianic successor to Moses and criticism of the Jewish temple. However, that the Ebionites venerated Jerusalem makes it unlikely that they came from Samaritanism. The Samaritans, Jesus, and the Ebionites seem Judaism, early 229 rather to have come from anti-Sadducee, anti-Pharisee Judaism, many sects of which had names derived from nsr. The Ebionites’ position between Gentile Christianity and rabbinic Judaism became untenable, and they disappeared from history after 400. On the other hand Ebionite denial of Jesus’ divinity lived on in Arianism, Nestorianism, and Islam. See also Assyria; Christianity, early; heresies; nestorius; Pharisees; Sadducees. Further reading: Skolnik, Fred, and Michael Berenbaum, eds. Encyclopedia Judaica. New York: Macmillan, 2006; Vanderkam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. Grant R. Shafer Judges Israelite history between the Exodus and the crowning of the fi rst king Saul is the period of the Judges. Strictly speaking, the leaders of Israel during this time are better described in modern language as “champions” or “heroes,” and they are not altogether different from the heroes and heroines praised in the poems and myths of ancient Greece. These “judges” are the charismatic generals and prophets who fought battles and won territory for specifi c tribes of Israel around the 12th and 13th centuries b.c.e. Each of their tenures was limited in territory and short in duration. The book of Judges in the Jewish scriptures is a collection of tales about 12 specifi c judges. The fact that there are 12 suggests an editorial design perhaps in keeping with the book’s emphasis on the 12 tribes of Israel. The date for the compilation of these tales was certainly generations after the events, for the words, “for there were no kings in the land,” recur often in the book. However, some of the poetry of the book probably is ancient, possibly going back to the time of the event. Most of the tales conform to a rough pattern of storytelling; that is, they suggest that whenever the tribes fall away from their covenant with the deity, they are punished with division and invasion. The editorial position is that when Moses and Joshua fi rst brought the tribes into Canaan, they were relatively secure, unifi ed, and successful. However, the tribes soon got bogged down in their bid to conquer the land, and the Israelites slid into accommodation with the native Canaanites. The results were that homes and farms were raided, and certain tribes were evicted from their land. When retribution was complete, a general or prophet brought the tribes back into security, unity, and success. The judge Deborah’s example shows that authority was not limited to men, though the rest of the 11 judges were men. Although she is not the fi eld commander of the campaign against the native Canaanites, she is the muse behind her tribe’s general Barak. Interestingly, another woman strikes the fatal blow against the enemy general. Deborah then leads her kinfolk in a victory song whose roots might go back to the days of the battle. Historically, her tales speak of the diffi culty that the newly planted highlanders had in claiming the native land of the fertile valleys. Correspondingly, archaeology shows a layer of destruction in 12th-century b.c.e. Megiddo, the time and place that possibly correspond to Deborah. The judge Gideon (Jerubbaal) shows how hard it is for the Israelites to live in the valleys. During the days of Gideon, nomadic Aramaeans keep raiding the tribes’ settlements. It is the clash between the farmers and the herdsman. Gideon is coaxed into leading an elite army and wins miraculous victory over the Midianites. The judge Samson hardly fi ts the image of a stereotypical hero: He is more like a wild man who saves the tribes by acting on his passions. In this sense he is lives and dies like the Greek hero Heracles. He possesses superhuman strength and singlehandedly delivers the tribes from the Philistines. However, his womanizing results in his downfall—like Heracles—and in the end he dies like a tragic hero, killing himself and pulling everyone down with him. See also Deuteronomy; Greek myth and pantheon; Hellenization. Further reading: Bright, John. A History of Israel. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972; Skolnik, Fred, and Michael Berenbaum, eds. Encyclopedia Judaica. New York: Macmillan, 2006. Mark F. Whitters Julian the Apostate (c. 331–363 c.e.) Roman ruler A target of the later fathers of the church and a hero of the Greco-Roman pagan romantics, Julian the Apostate generated literary reaction out of proportion to his tenure as Caesar. It is debatable what his vision of a return to religion of the Greeks and Romans really entailed, whether an embracing of the philosophy of Neoplatonism or a true devotion to Greek mythology and the pantheon of Mount Olympus and its cult. Nonetheless, 230 Judges his passion was for a return to a non-Christian Greco- Roman culture, and he was as passionate about religion opposed to Christianity as the Christians were about their converting the world. All else—taxes, communication, empire—were secondary to both groups. He grew up in a world of political rivalry and bloodletting among the family members of Constantine the Great. Because he was only a small boy, his life was spared when Constantine’s illegitimate descendants killed his father and all of his uncles in 337 c.e. He was shuffl ed off here and there by wary imperial wardens, fi rst to bustling Nicomedia and then to lonely, distant Cappadocia. In such an isolated existence he discovered the world of the Homeric epics and Hesiod, the twin sources of the Greek pagan “Bible” canon. He also found consolation in the beauty of nature and thus was prone to sympathy for the pantheistic theology of his Greek forebears. Later, as a teenager, he was exposed to the philosophy of some excellent Neoplatonic teachers (Libanius, Maximus, and Iamblichus). All of these factors— the strife that Christianity brought to his childhood, the stability of the Greek classics, his sensitivity, and the explanation of philosophy—led Julian to undergo a secret “conversion” to Greek (pagan) religion by the age of 20. He was initiated into the mystery of Mithras at that time. His true colors did not show up publicly for at least 10 more years. At the age of 24 he was summoned by his cousin Emperor Constantius II to do service in the West. Although he was named Caesar, he was closely supervised by the emperor’s key personnel. He had no particular military training, yet he acquitted himself well on the battlefi eld against the Germans over the next fi ve years. At that point the emperor ordered Julian and his troops to go east and fi ght against the Persian Sassanid Empire. Instead, after a careful conspiracy his troops mutinied and proclaimed Julian Augustus, that is, emperor, in place of Constantius II. A civil war was avoided only because his cousin suddenly died in 361. At the age of 30 Julian was sole leader of the Roman Empire and could with impunity proclaim that he was not a Christian but a believer in Greek religion. He purged the bloated imperial bureaucracy for the sake of effi ciency and to eliminate Christian infl uence. He showed youthful energy in taking actions to reinstate paganism: He cut off funding for churches; he refurbished Greek temples and tried to reinstate the Greek priests and bloody sacrifi ce; and he forbade Christians from teaching the Greek classics. He tried to undermine Christianity in several ways. One of his quirky ideas was to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, a project probably intended as a jab at the Christians. That idea was abandoned when an earthquake occurred just before reconstruction was to begin. Another, more reasonable idea was to proclaim complete religious tolerance, probably in hopes that Christianity would disintegrate into a morass of doctrinal wrangling. He exiled one of Christianity’s venerable heroes, Athanasius, and he refused to rescue the Christian intellectual center, Nisibis, when the Persians captured it. By the same token he wanted to prove that he was both serious about his duties as emperor and endowed with the blessings of Zeus and the gods, so he undertook a campaign against the Persians. He was ingloriously defeated and died in 363 in the dry lands of Mesopotamia, less than two years after he had assumed power. His program had generated only limited public support, and in the end the empire reverted into the hands of the Christians, determined never again to let another such pagan take over. See also Basil the Great; Cappadocians; Christianity, early; Chrysostum, John; Edessa; Ephrem; Roman Empire. Further reading: Bowersock, Glen W. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997; Smith, Rowland B. Julian’s Gods. New York: Taylor and Francis, 1995. Mark F. Whitters Julio-Claudian emperors The Julio-Claudian emperors of ancient Rome were from the family of Julius Caesar—or rather his sister Julia, and that of the fi rst husband of the wife of Augustus Caesar, Tiberius Claudius Nero. They include the emperor Augustus Octavian; (31 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), Tiberius (14–37 c.e.), Caligula (37–41 c.e.), Claudius (41–54 c.e.), and Nero (54–68 c.e.). The founder of this line of emperors was Octavian, who became known in history as Emperor Augustus. He was the great-nephew of Julius Caesar, later becoming his adopted son. The mother of Augustus was the daughter of Julia, sister of Julius Caesar. His connection to Julius Caesar was twice through the female line, but this did not stop the Roman general from nominating Octavian as his heir. Octavian ruled over the Roman Empire from 31 b.c.e. until his death in 14 c.e. but carefully chose not to title himself as emperor. EMPEROR TIBERIUS When Octavian died in 14 c.e., Tiberius succeeded him as emperor. Tiberius Claudius Nero was the son of Livia, the second wife of Octavian, with her fi rst Julio-Claudian emperors 231 husband, making him Octavian’s stepson. Tiberius was born in 42 b.c.e. When he was two, his father, a prominent Roman aristocrat and the commander of Julius Caesar’s fl eet, was forced to fl ee Rome—and from Octavian. Tiberius’s father had declared his support for Mark Antony and took the family to Sicily, and then to Greece, returning a few years later when an amnesty was announced. When Tiberius was four, his parents divorced, and his mother married Octavian. He and his younger brother, Drusus Nero, both went to live with their mother and their stepfather, Octavian. Tiberius was soon earmarked as Octavian’s possible successor, and when he was 13 he rode one of the horses in Octavian’s chariot in the victory parade through Rome after the Battle of Actium. Tiberius married Vipsania Agrippina, the daughter of Marcus Agrippa. Tiberius then embarked on a military career. In 20 b.c.e. the young Tiberius accompanied Octavian to Parthia where the Roman legions were keen on avenging a loss suffered 33 years earlier. Tiberius continued his time in the military, managing to capture Pannonia (encompassing much of modern-day Slovakia). In 9 b.c.e. Nero Drusus, his younger brother fell from a horse in Germany. Tiberius made his way over to see him as quickly as possible, but Drusus died. Tiberius divorced his wife and married Julia. In 6 b.c.e. Tiberius became a tribune, and then retired to Rhodes where he grew reclusive. In 14 c.e. Octavian died, and Tiberius, aged 54, became Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus. Octavian had not liked him but saw that he would be a capable administrator who could rule over the Roman Empire. Tiberius began his reign well, although a possible rival, Postumus, was murdered soon afterward. The new emperor saw his role as consolidating the empire that Julius Caesar and Augustus had created. He spent money wisely, ending massive gladiatorial shows, and during his reign of 23 years he left 20 times as much wealth in the government’s coffers as had been there when he took over. However, much of his reign was plagued by problems over succession. His son Drusus died in 23 c.e., and soon afterward, Sejanus, the commander of the Praetorian Guard (who might have been involved in the death of Drusus) became the most powerful man in Rome after the emperor. In 27 Tiberius, aged 67, moved to Capri. Tiberius held court on Capri, and the courtiers, guards, offi cials seeking favors and others also moved to the island. Many believe that Tiberius became mentally ill, as he started ordering executions, seemingly at random. With Tiberius on Capri, Sejanus essentially ruled Rome, marrying the widow of the son of Tiberius. Many began to feel that Sejanus was about to become the anointed successor of Tiberius, yet when the emperor managed to smuggle a letter to the Senate in Rome asking for Sejanus to be executed, they complied. In the end Tiberius nominated Caligula, a son of his stepdaughter, and also a great-nephew, as his successor. Tiberius returned to Rome and took part in ceremonial games that required him to throw a javelin. The effort wrenched his shoulder, and he retired to bed where he fell into a coma. Caligula was proclaimed the new emperor in 31, but soon after this Tiberius regained consciousness. The new Praetorian Guard commander, Macro, immediately smothered the emperor. CALIGULA AND CLAUDIUS Caligula was born Gaius Caesar in 12 c.e. and became known as Caligula (Little Boot) when he was a boy and accompanied some soldiers on a march, having his own miniature armor made. His father, Germanicus Caesar, was a stepson of Tiberius, and when his father died, he had become Gaius Caesar Germanicus. Caligula made a tremendous speech at the funeral for Tiberius. Soon after he became emperor, he became ill and then started to display massive cruelty and sadism. Roman historians clearly did not like him, and from many accounts he was a despotic emperor. With the coffers of Rome fi lled by Tiberius, Caligula started to squander money on an extravagant scale, so much so that he later had to resort to extorting money from wealthy Roman citizens. Caligula held lavish games at the Colosseum during which he watched massive displays of brutality and sadism. At the same time he came to regard himself as a deity, and soon rumors spread that he would marry one of his sisters to establish a Ptolemaic-type succession whereby the oldest son married the oldest sister. As his excesses became more and more horrendous, a coup d’état was planned, and a tribune of the Praetorian Guard killed Caligula on January 24, 41 c.e., when he was at the Palatine Games. His wife and daughter were also murdered. As the Praetorian Guard sacked the imperial palace, they found Caligula’s uncle, Claudius, and proclaimed him the next emperor. Claudius, born in 10 b.c.e., was always regarded as clumsy and stuttered a little and was an unexpected choice of emperor, having spent much of his time devoted to studying history and literature. Altogether he wrote, in Greek, 20 books on Etruscan history, and eight on Carthage, as well as an autobiography, but none of these books have survived. Some of the senators sided with Claudius, and others supported a small insurrection in Dalmatia. Soon after 232 Julio-Claudian emperors his appointment as emperor, Claudius annexed Mauretania in North Africa and then decided to invade Britain. This took place in 43 c.e. with the Roman soldiers led by Aulus Plautius. With victory assured Claudius arrived in Britain and established a large colony of Roman veterans around the capital, Camulodunum (modern-day Colchester), although many were killed. Claudius signifi - cantly added to the empire by taking Lycia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) and Thrace, avoiding war with the Germans and the Parthians. Claudius expended much of his energy on reforming the administration of the Roman Empire. He improved the legal system and established a large settlement of Roman army veterans in Britain and at Colonia Agrippinensis (modern-day Cologne). He also made changes to the Roman religious practices. However, there was dissatisfaction in the Roman imperial family after Claudius divorced his wife Messalina and married his niece Agrippina. He then adopted her son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (who became the emperor Nero), and he became heir instead of Claudius’s son, Britannicus. On October 13, 54 c.e., Agrippina poisoned Claudius, allegedly with mushrooms, his favorite dish, leaving the adopted son of Claudius to become the next emperor. NERO, THE FIFTH ROMAN EMPEROR Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, born in 37 c.e., had taken the title Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, and in 54 became Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, the fi fth Roman emperor. Nero’s father died when he was three, and his mother, who poisoned her second husband and then married her uncle Claudius before poisoning him, had brought him up. She later poisoned Britannicus, Claudius’s biological son, as well. The Praetorian Guard proclaimed Nero emperor when he was 16. Initially, Nero pushed through some important reforms. Nero forbade bloodshed in the circus, banned capital punishment, and allowed slaves to bring complaints against their masters. In the period after the death of Nero’s mother —killed on his orders in 59—and that of his wife Octavia, in June 62, also murdered at his instigation, Nero changed dramatically. He married two more times, but neither marriage lasted. He quickly became famous for his extravagances and personal debauchery. Burrus died in 62 c.e., and Seneca soon lost his infl uence over the emperor. In 64 a large fi re burned down a signifi cant section of Rome, and Nero used it as an excuse to build his “Golden House,” planned to span a third of the city of Rome. The emperor was 35 miles away at Antium when the fi re started, but this did not stop the accusations that he had started the blaze himself. Nero blamed the Christians for the fi re, and soon afterward the persecution of Christians, and also many Jews, started. Many Christians were arrested and taken to the Colosseum, where they were fed to lions to the amusement of tens of thousands of spectators. Others were crucifi ed, covered in pitch, and set alight. Meanwhile Nero indulged himself in wild orgies and quickly spent the wealth that Claudius had amassed. A plot to overthrow Nero in 65 failed but did show that he was resented by many of the population. Finally, a large rebellion broke out in Spain where the provincial governor Servius Sulpicius Galba led his troops through Gaul to Rome. Nero at fi rst fainted when he heard the news. He then pondered how to prevent the rebels from reaching Rome with one idea being to allow them to legally plunder Gaul, which he thought might occupy them for several months while he could collect together his own men. However, Galba led his men to Rome. With the Praetorian Guard fl eeing, Nero was forced to leave for Greece. There he was recognized, captured, and executed. Galba, who succeeded him, did not last long as emperor. He was quickly ousted by Marcus Salvius Otho in the following year, who was then ousted by Vitellius, and fi nally by Vespasian. See also Roman golden and silver ages; Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: decline and fall; Rome: government. Further reading: Barrett, Anthony A. Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002; Champlin, Edward. Nero. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003; Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1996; Griffi n, Miriam T. Nero: The End of a Dynasty. London: B. T. Batsford, 1984; Levick, Barbara M. Tiberius the Politician. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976; ———. Claudius. London: Batsford, 1990; Seager, Robin. Tiberius. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972; Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1977; Weigall, Arthur. Nero, Emperor of Rome. London: T. Butterworth, 1930. Justin Corfi eld Justinian I (c. 482–565 c.e.) Byzantine emperor Justinian was born to a nonaristocratic family in the Balkans. His uncle Justin served in the imperial bodyguard and rose to become its commanding offi cer and then emperor from 518 to 527 c.e. Justin promoted and Justinian I 233 adopted his talented nephew and proclaimed him coemperor in 527. Two years earlier Justinian had married Theodora, a former actress and prostitute, who would prove a strong imperial partner until her death in 548. Justinian envisioned the restoration of imperial unity and power that had been impaired during the fi fth century, when the empire endured assaults by German tribes that removed most of the west from imperial control. In 532 Justinian faced his gravest challenge in the Nika Riot in Constantinople (called so because the crowd shouted “Nika,” the Greek word for “conquer”). Justinian’s tax reforms and some of his offi cials were unpopular. Justinian attempted to arrest members of the Blues and Greens (the leading sports clubs which supported their charioteers who wore the said colors during the races in the Hippodrome) that were rioting. The riots escalated in force and various senators who opposed Justinian’s centralization of power used the riots, which appeared ready to topple the government, to propose a new imperial candidate. Justinian considered abandoning the throne. At this moment of doubt Theodora declared that she would rather die than abandon the imperial purple. Bolstered by her, Justinian unleashed soldiers under Belisarius and Mundo who massacred, reportedly, 30,000 people. The riot had the effect of strengthening Justinian’s position, as he used it to arrest and punish his political opponents. He also used it to impose his stamp on Constantinople, sections of which had been burned down, including the church of Hagia Sophia. The emperor built a new, far grander Hagia Sophia that was the greatest church in Christendom and the mark of Byzantine power and splendor to the 15th century. It stands today as one of the great works of world architecture. Justinian built or repaired other churches as well as fortresses throughout the empire. Procopius, a contemporary, wrote On Buildings to describe the imperial effort. As part of his restoration of unity and power, Justinian commissioned the revision and reorganization of laws, known collectively as the Corpus Juris Civilis. This work comprised the Code (the law book), the Digest (legal decisions and commentaries), the Institutes (a legal textbook), and the Novels, which were the new laws promulgated after the Code. Justinian’s greatest challenge was to fi nd a way of uniting the various Christian groups in his empire. Without a solution his empire would remain divided between eastern lands, like Egypt and Syria, and the West. As a student of theology himself, Justinian was one of the few emperors to write theological works, though he was not above persecuting other groups to pressure them to conform. He persecuted non-Christians such as Samaritans and pagans. The theological problems even affected the imperial palace. His wife, Theodora, was pro-Monophysite, while he himself fl uctuated between a pro-Chalcedonian and a more tolerant position. In 553 Justinian summoned the Fifth Ecumenical Council that met in Constantinople. This did not, unfortunately, bring a permanent solution. Justinian was more successful with other groups, namely the Christians of Arianism, who rejected the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Ephesus, which proclaimed that Christ was begotten and not made by God. His persecution of them made relations with the German tribes in the West uneasy, since they too were Arians (except the Franks). Justinian’s goal of stamping out heresy and bringing the lands of the West back into Roman hands would both be accomplished by military assault. Under Belisarius he campaigned fi rst against the Vandals of North Africa, which he quickly conquered (533–534). The campaign then shifted to Sicily and Italy where the Ostrogoths were defeated in a long drawn-out confl ict that devastated Italy (535–552). (Three years after the emperor’s death, the Lombards invaded Italy and deprived the empire of much of the reconquered peninsula.) Justinian also occupied portions of Spain held by the Visigoths. The army’s focus on the West, however, weakened the eastern and northern defenses. Justinian’s vision of unity managed to bring entire regions back to the empire, created a lasting legal compilation, built one of the great monuments of world architecture, and asserted imperial power over all challenges. Yet, this was achieved at a great price. He was not able to fi nd a solution to theological divisions, and the cost of the western reconquest emptied the treasury and opened up problems of defense for his successors. See also Code of Justinian; Greek Church; Latin Church; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Khosrow I; Roman Empire; Rome: decline and fall. Further reading: Browning, R. Justinian and Theodora. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987; Maas, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Moorhead, J. Justinian. London: Longman, 1994. Matthew Herbst Justinian, Code of See Code of Justinian.

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Jin (Chin) dynasty The people who ruled the Jin dynasty were called Jurchen; their language belonged to the Tungustic family related to Manchu and they were the fi rst among the Tungustic people to form a major dynastic state. Their original homeland was in present day Jilin (Kirin) province in northern Manchuria, where they hunted, fi shed, raised livestock, and also farmed living in semisubterranean log cabins. Jurchen were organized into tribes, which were subdivided into clans. Early accounts call them fi erce warriors, heavy drinkers, and believers in shamanism. As with many other tribal peoples in eastern Asia, a man married his father’s widows (other than his own mother) and also his brothers’ widows. After the 10th century some Jurchen moved to southern Manchuria and became vassals to the Song (Sung) dynasty and the Liao dynasty. These Jurchen began to learn from the more advanced culture of the Khitan (Liao) and Chinese and were called “civilized Jur chen” as opposed to their northern kin, who were called “wild Jurchen.” JURCHEN TREATY WITH THE SONG DYNASTY In the early 12th century Jurchen erupted to power under Wanyan Aguda (Wan-yen A-ku-ta), 1068–1123. He raided Liao frontier posts and defeated Liao forces sent against him. Emboldened, he announced the creation in 1115 of a dynastic state called Jin, which means gold, after a river of that name. He then sent envoys to negotiate a treaty with the Song government, his nominal overlord, jointly to attack Liao, their common enemy, until its destruction, and then to divide the spoils. Under the terms Song would get the 16 prefectures in northeastern China that they had failed to win in previous wars against Liao and would pay to Jin annually the 200,000 ounces of silver and 300,000 bolts of silk it had been paying to Liao. The war began with Song armies attacking from the south and Jurchen from the northeast. While Song armies did not do well against Liao on the southern front, Jin forces advanced relentlessly, taking Liao capitals and capturing the last Liao emperor in 1225, ending that dynasty. Jin turned over to Song the 16 prefectures, which included a Liao capital in present-day Beijing. But their alliance soon collapsed. Jin forces advanced on Song territory until reaching its capital, Kaifeng (K’ai-feng). The inept and unprepared Emperor Huizong (Huitsung) then abdicated, leaving his son Qinzong (Ch’intsung) to cope. After sustaining a long siege and out of food and supplies, Qinzong capitulated and agreed to Jin’s harsh terms in 1125. When the Song government was unable to meet the demands for payment, Jin resumed its attack in 1126 until Kaifeng surrendered unconditionally. After thoroughly pillaging the city, Jin forces carried Huizong, Qinzong, and 3,000 members of their family and court as prisoners to northern Manchuria. The debacle ended the fi rst part of the Song dynasty, retroactively called Northern Song, whereas the period 1127–1279 is called Southern Song. One of Huizong’s younger sons escaped, rallied Song troops, and continued to fi ght, fi nally establishing J his capital in Hangzhou (Hangchou) on the coast south of the Yangzi (Yangtze) River. Jin cavalry found fi ghting diffi cult in the Yangzi area because of the rivers, canals, and lakes. Song loyalists, most notably general Yue Fei (Yueh Fei), were able to carry the offensive to the Yellow River valley. Finally Jin and Song signed a peace treaty in 1142 that led to coexistence, in which Song ceded all the Yellow River drainage area to Jin, with the Huai River as the border. Song also accepted vassal status to the Jin (the Song emperor was forced to address the Jin emperor as uncle) and agreed to annual payment of 200,000 ounces of silver and 200,000 bolts of silk to Jin. The payments were altered twice during the next century as a result of two brief wars between the two states, varying according to the outcome of each confl ict. CULTURE AND INSTITUTIONS Although he did not live to see Jin victory against both Liao and Song, Aguda was responsible for transforming Jurchen society, leading to its success. Jurchen had no written script and had used Khitan (Liao) writing until Aguda ordered a Jurchen writing system created in 1120. It was called the Jurchen Great Script and was based on the Khitan system. In 1038 a Jurchen Small Script was introduced. Neither gained widespread usage, few surviving examples and no complete books of either have survived, and not all words have been deciphered. Initially, literate Jurchen continued to use the Khitan writing system; later they preferred to use Chinese and did not record their oral traditions or write literature in their own language. Jin diplomatic correspondence with Southern Song and all other states was written entirely in Chinese and it seems no Song offi cial learned Jurchen. The Jin empire at its peak in 1207 had 8.5 million households and 53 million people. The Southern Song empire had a comparable population, which made them the two most populous states in the world at that time. There exist no precise fi gures on the ethnic identity of people of the Jin empire, but experts agree that Jurchen constituted less than 10 percent of the total. As Liao, Jin was set up as a dual administration, with a north-facing government to govern Jurchen people under tribal laws, and a south-facing one to administer their Chinese subjects under modifi ed Tang (T’ang) laws that it inherited from Liao. Similarly to Liao, Jin ruled from several capitals, a Supreme Capital in their homeland in northern Manchuria, the Eastern Capital in Luoyang, Western Capital in Datong (Tatung), Central Capital in modern Beijing, and Western Capital in Kaifeng. Jurchen military colonies were established at strategic locations across northern China and Jurchen were encouraged to migrate from their homeland to northern China. This policy reduced the reservoir of Jurchen in their homeland and even though they were a privileged group, often as landlords, it made their assimilation to Chinese culture more rapid. Jurchen living amid Chinese quickly became bilingual, and later solely Chinese speakers. The Wanyang clan ruled the Jin Empire, and within the empire, Jurchen people enjoyed primacy. The military was dominated by the cavalry and was made up almost exclusively of Jurchen. Chinese conscripts and volunteers formed the infantry, but the higher offi cers were Jurchen. Jin needed large numbers of offi cials to administer the populous empire. Most of the lower ranks of the civil administration were made up of Chinese, but few Chinese were admitted to the higher ranks of the civil government. Where there were two offi cials of the same rank, Jurchen always enjoyed greater privileges than Chinese. Even the examination system that was inherited from Song times was modifi ed with a parallel system of academies and examinations. The one for Jurchen scholars was held in Jurchen language and script and was easier than the one for Chinese scholars. Moreover a higher percentage of Jurchen candidates passed than Chinese candidates. Sons of Jurchen offi - cials were also able to receive appointments without passing the exams. Just as Song China’s offi cial ideology was Confucianism, it too was the Jin offi cial ideology, and it was also based on the interpretations of the Northern Song scholar-offi cial Wang Anshi (Wang An-shih); and Confucius’s lineal descendant was given ducal rank in Jin. The Jin state in fact proudly counted itself as the valid heir of Chinese achievements and of Northern Song’s cultural greatness. Jurchen, became Buddhists and adopted Chinese-style Buddhism. Jin rulers since Aguda had adopted Chinese reign titles and imperial ceremonies. The offi cial ethnic policy of Jin, however, changed several times through the dynasty. Initially Jin tried to impose Jurchen clothes and hairstyles on its Chinese subjects. These rules were unenforceable and the reverse took place. Even at the height of the dynasty, during the reign Emperor Shizong (Shih-tsung, r. 1161–89), Jurchen were forbidden to wear Chinesestyle clothes. He also ordered them to give up Chinese names that they had adopted. He also ordered Jurchen, including his own family members, to return to their tribal habits, including hunting, and to speak in Jurchen. He was moved to tears when one of his grandsons spoke several sentences in Jurchen, because by then most had forgotten how to speak it. In 1191 his successor issued 222 Jin (Chin) dynasty an order that forbade his Chinese subjects to refer to Jurchen as fan, which is derogatory, with the connotation of “barbarian.” These and other attempts to make Jurchen retain their culture were futile, and they assimilated to the Chinese way of life. Only those who remained in their homeland in Manchuria retained the Jurchen language and way of life, and they came to be called “wild Jurchen.” The expanding Mongol empire under Genghis Khan began to war against Jin in1212, initially as plundering expeditions, then forcing Jin to abandon land and move to Kaifeng as the remaining capital. It was totally destroyed in 1234 after Genghis’s death by his youngest son, Tului Khan. Jin was already in decline, its economy weakened by fl ooding of the Yellow River, its control weakened by revolts and internal dissent. It nevertheless resisted for 20 years until it was fi nally ground down and its territories destroyed. Further reading: Franke, Herbert, and Denis Twichett, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. VI, Alien Regimes and Border States, 707–1368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Rossabi, Morris, ed. China Among Equals, The Middle Kingdom and its Neighbors, 10th–14th Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983; Sinor, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Joachim of Flora (c. 1135–1202) historiographer, monk, and mystic Joachim of Flora, or Joachim of Fiore, was an Italian monk, mystic, and biblical exegete who was the principal medieval proponent of apocalypticism or millenarianism (generally, any doctrine, usually based on the Book of Revelation, concerning the end of the temporal world, the Second Advent of Christ, and his thousandyear reign). Joachim stands as one of the most signifi - cant theorists of history in the Western tradition. Joachim was born at Celico in Calabria (southern Italy) around 1132. His father placed him at an early age in the service of the Sicilian court at Palermo. While on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Joachim seems to have had an experience of spiritual illumination and conversion, after which he returned to Calabria and entered the Benedictine monastery of Corazzo around 1171. In 1177 Joachim was elected abbot and, in his quest for the perfect realization of the monastic life, worked to incorporate Corazzo into the recently founded Cistercian order. Toward this end, around 1183 he traveled to the important monastery of Casamari south of Rome. While there Joachim had mystical visions that illuminated his mind regarding the concordance of the Scriptures and the mystery of the Trinity. These visions not only launched Joachim’s writing career but also compelled him (dissatisfi ed with the Cistercian order of his day) to found his own religious house, the monastery of San Giovanni, at Fiore around 1190. In 1196 Joachim’s congregation became an offi cially recognized religious order, the Order of Fiore, which had a rather undistinguished history until it was reunited with the Cistercian order in 1570. Joachim himself died at San Giovanni on Holy Saturday in 1202 (March 30). In his three major works, namely, The Book of Concordance of the Old and New Testament, Exposition of the Apocalypse, and The Psalter of Ten Strings, Joachim uses biblical prophecy to develop a trinitarian understanding of history that draws on, but diverges signifi cantly from, the traditional Pauline and Augustinian scheme of “before the law,” “under the law,” and “under grace.” Joachim fi nds the triune God in a more sophisticated system of three historically oriented “states of the world” (status seculi), each characterized by a manner of life, an order of the elect, and a certain part of sacred Scripture. The fi rst state, beginning with Adam and extending to Christ, is that of the Father. It is characterized by living according to the fl esh, by the married order (established so that humans can become images of the Father by creating children), and by the Old Testament. The second state, spanning from Elisha the prophet to Joachim’s day, is that of the Son. It is characterized by living between the two poles of fl esh and spirit, by the order of clergy (who bear the image of the Son by preaching and teaching the Gospel), and by the New Testament. The third state, beginning with St. Benedict (c. 480–c. 550) and running to the consummation of the world, is that of the Spirit. It is characterized by living according to the Spirit, by the order of monks (who, by despising the world and devoting themselves wholly to the love of God, bear the image of the Spirit, who is the very love of God), and by the spiritual understanding that proceeds from both the Old and New Testaments. Joachim understood himself and the spiritual men who constituted his Order of Fiore as those upon whom this spiritual understanding was being poured out as a sign of the coming end of history. It is in this concept of a third stage still to come that Joachim made his most original and lasting contribution to the theology Joachim of Flora 223 of history generally and millenarianism in particular. Although certain doctrines of Joachim were offi cially condemned at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Arles (1263), his notion of a third state continued to infl uence visionaries and theorists of history during the late Middle Ages and beyond. Further reading: Reeves, Marjorie. Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future: A Medieval Study in Historical Thinking. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Wessley, Stephen E. Joachim of Fiore and Monastic Reform. New York: P. Lang, 1990. Franklin T. Harkins Joan of Arc (1412–1431) French heroine Joan of Arc (Jeanne d’Arc), the national heroine of France, was born at Domrémy village on January 6, 1412, to Jacques Darc and Isabelle. Joan exhibited a pious character and was often absorbed in her prayers. At 13 years old, she started hearing inner voices calling upon her to drive the English out of France. A civil war was going on in France and the English were supporting the Burgundians. The assassination of Louis of Orléans by the agents of Burgundy had escalated the confl ict. Domrémy was with the Orléanist (or Armagnacs), the party of Charles of Ponthieu (later known as King Charles VII, r. 1422–61). Joan supposedly received heavenly commands from St. Margaret, St. Catherine, and the Archangel Michael to rescue Orléans. The English ruler Henry VII (r. 1422–61), claimant to the French throne, occupied Paris in 1418. The major cities of northern France ceased to be under Charles VII’s control. The situation was becoming critical after the English lay siege to Orléans, the last Armagnac stronghold, on October 12. Joan, with her mandate from God, saved the situation for the French king. Dressed in male attire, she rode for 11 days with her escorts to meet Charles. Joan called herself as La Pucelle (the Maiden or Virgin) as she had promised the saints to keep her virginity. She believed that Charles was the true heir to the French throne. An ecclesiastical commission headed by the archbishop of Rheims, Reginald of Chartres, supported her cause after thorough interrogation. Joan had shown remarkable calmness before the theologians and her reputation as another saint was spreading. Charles was convinced of her simplicity, honesty, and intuition. Joan dressed as a knight, commanding a large force against the English and Burgundians. With her piety and simplicity, Joan restored the confi dence of the French. She advised the English to leave France per the desire of the son of Saint Mary. Joan entered into Orléans in May 1429 and defeated the English. Some of the English soldiers deserted, thinking that they were being opposed by the supernatural prowess of Joan. She portrayed the Orléanists as patriots, the Burgundians as traitors, and the English as the enemy of France. In June the towns of Jargeau and Beaugency fell. Joan defeated the troop led by Sir John Fastolf of Meung in the battle of Patay. The archbishop of Embrun declared in June that she was divinely inspired and requested Charles to seek her advice pertaining to war. Joan urged Charles to declare himself as the legitimate ruler of France. Reginald of Chartres performed the coronation ceremony on July 17, 1429, at Rheims, place of traditional crowning of the French kings. She began her second mission as inner voices urged her to take back Paris from Burgundians. Charles and his adviser the archbishop did not support her. The king was more interested in a political rapprochement with the Burgundians. Joan and the duke of Alençon, along with new recruits, marched toward Paris on August 23. The vacillating policy of the king and advisers had given enough time for the English and Burgundians to regroup. Meanwhile Joan was trying to persuade the inhabitants of many towns to rally behind the king. The stories of her miracles came in March and April 1430 amid war. At Lagny-sur-Marne, she and the virgins of the town revived the dead body of a baby temporarily to be baptized. On Easter Day of April 22 she had visions from the saints that the enemy would capture her before Saint John’s Day, on June 24. She also had the premonition of her inevitable demise on the day of her capture on May 23 at Compiègne. She was imprisoned and sold to the English for a sum of 10,000 livres by the Burgundians. A sham trial began at the headquarters of the En glish at Rouen. Pierre Cauchon was in charge of the trial, and the bishop of Beauvais was the presiding offi cer. The former had the reputation of bribing offi cials, and the latter had lost his bishopric because of Joan. Anybody speaking in favor of the defendant was imprisoned. The trial by inquisitorial tribunal increased the reputation of Joan because of her brilliant answers to the accusation that her voices were inspired by the devil. She was pronounced a relapsed heretic and burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. In her last 224 Joan of Arc breath Joan forgave the accusers and uttered the name of Jesus. Jean Tressard, secretary to the king of En gland, commented that they had burned a holy person. The executioner, Geoffroy Theragew, was apprehensive that he was damned because he had burned a saint. The unifi cation of France came after her death. Charles restored her name and declared the trial illegal. Even dispensing with the supernatural factors associated with her, the fact remains that she became a living symbol of French nationalism. Her role was a major contributing factor for separating the English from Burgundians, reviving confi dence among the French, and driving out the English from France. The papacy declared in 1456 that Joan was wrongly convicted. It pronounced her as martyr and the trial judges as heretics. She was beatifi ed on April 11, 1909, and canonized as a saint 11 years afterward on May 16. The feast day of St. Joan falls on the second Sunday in May. The spirit of St. Joan lived on. During World War I, the Allied soldiers paid tribute to her. Both the Vichy regime and the French resistance used her symbol in World War II. See also Hundred Years’ War. Further reading: Geis, Frances. Joan of Arc: The Legend and the Reality. New York: Harper & Row, 1981; Paine, A. B. The Girl in White Armor: The Story of Joan of Arc. New York: Macmillan, 1967; Pernoud, Régine. Joan of Arc: By Herself & Her Witnesses. New York: Dorset, 1988; Selene, Patrice. Joan of Arc. New York: HarperCollins, 1996. Patit Paban Mishra

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

Jahangir (1596–1627) Mughal ruler Jahangir inherited the Mughal throne from his father, Akbar, the greatest Mughal emperor. His realm included part of Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent up to the Deccan. It was one of the largest empires of the world and enjoyed prosperity. Prince Salim (Selim) was Akbar’s eldest son, who took the reign name Jahangir, which means “world grasper.” He explained in his memoir that there was a contemporary Ottoman emperor also named Salim, which made him decide to change his name. Jahangir had to suppress many revolts during his reign, including those of his sons, one of whom he had blinded after the revolt failed. Other campaigns were against rulers in the Deccan area subdued by Emperor Akbar and again in revolt, and against the Persian ruler for control of Kandahar. In addition to his frank memoir, there are vivid accounts by others about Jahangir. One was by his boon companion, the English sea captain William Hawkins, and another was by Sir Thomas Roe, English ambassador, who arrived at the Mughal court in 1616 to negotiate a treaty between England and the Mughal government but failed and left two years later. As were many Mughal princes, Jahangir was addicted to strong alcoholic drinks, and to eating opium, which seldom left him sober. He professed himself an orthodox Muslim but was generally tolerant of other reli- Jahangir atop the Mughal throne: His reign was marked by good intentions, internal rebellion, and revolutions headed by his sons. gions. However, he let divine faith, a religion that his father sponsored, wither away. In 1611, Jahangir married the Persian-born widow of one of his officials after having her husband killed for refusing to divorce her and for revolting against him. The lady was given the title Nur Jahan, which means “light of the world,” and she became the empress for the remainder of his reign. Both Jahangir and Nur Jahan patronized the arts. But Nur Jahan was also politically ambitious. To influence her husband’s succession she married her daughter to one of his sons, and her niece (Mumtaz Mahal) to another, who became his father’s successor as Shah Jahan. She surrounded herself with her relatives, arousing the jealousy of Jahangir’s relatives; intrigues among the members of the two factions led to rebellion. In 1627, her protégé, a general named Mahabat Khan, revolted in alliance with Shah Jahan; they imprisoned both Jahangir and Nur Jahan for several months. Just as he had revolted against his father, so he died in the midst of his son’s revolt, followed by a power struggle between his sons. Despite wars and rebellions, Jahangir’s reign was generally prosperous, as he enjoyed the legacy of his father. His memoirs often expressed good intentions for promoting justice and efficiency, but he seldom followed through because of his indulgence in alcohol and drugs. See also Mughal Empire. Further reading: Gascoigne, Bamber. The Great Moghuls. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1971; Findley, E. B. Nur Jahan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; Richards, John F. The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Schimmel, Annemarie. The Empire of the Great Mughals, History, Art and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur James I (James VI of Scotland) (1566–1625) first Stuart king of England James Stuart became king of England in March 1503, following the death of the last monarch of the House of Tudor, Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII, king of England. Robert Carey brought the word of Elizabeth’s death to James, already king of Scotland as James VI, at Holyrood House in Edinburgh on March 26. James was born on June 3, 1566, the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and Henry, Lord Darnley. From the birth of James, Mary feared for the safety of her son, one main reason being the desire of Darnley to be king, an ambition that the birth of a male heir to the throne threatened. James Hepburn, the earl of Bothwell, and other Scottish lords shared the same concern. (Bothwell would later become Mary’s lover and then her husband.) There was more at stake than the throne of Scotland, because Mary also had a claim on the throne of England through Margaret Tudor, the daughter of Henry VII, king of England. Margaret had married James IV of Scotland. By the beginning of February 1567, Elizabeth recognized Mary, Queen of Scots, as heiress to the throne of England (since Elizabeth was childless). Thus, through his mother, one day the infant James would reign in England. Elizabeth had already undertaken to be the baby boy’s protector. With such high dynastic stakes, the fate of the conspiratorial Darnley was sealed. On February 10, 1567, he was killed when his house was blown up with the knowledge of, if not on the orders of, Mary. However, the death of Darnley brought neither peace to Scotland nor security to Mary. Defeated in battle by James Stewart, earl of Moray, Mary in May 1568 made a surprising decision—she would seek refuge with Elizabeth in England. Her closest supporters urged her to go to France, where she had been queen to King Francis II, who had died in 1560. Nevertheless, she entered England. Once in England, she remained in varying stages of confinement until Elizabeth had her executed for plotting against her in February 1587. During the intervening years, James was brought up in the Protestant faith, his guardians preventing any exposure to the Roman Catholic religion of his mother. At 19 years of age, he became monarch of Scotland as James VI. It appears that the goal of succeeding to the English throne became the abiding ambition of James VI. Indeed, he was so fixated on this goal that his reaction to the trial and execution of his mother was quite mild. Then in March 1603, upon the death of Elizabeth, James VI of Scotland also became James I of England. In becoming king of England James had not reckoned on the growing assertiveness of the English parliament that Elizabeth had managed throughout her long reign (1558–1603) with an effective mix of feminine guile and political art. James’s deep-set belief in the divine right of kings brought him into collision almost immediately with his English parliament. He attempted to stay on good terms with Parliament, especially when the Catholic- inspired Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was seen as an attack on the entire Protestant settlement of England. For a time, Parliament and king could combine against the common foe of a Catholic conspiracy. 186 James I When Parliament refused to accept James’s Great Contract, James took the dramatic step of dissolving Parliament in 1611. Parliament met twice more during James’s reign, and both times he dissolved it again. His overall adroit handling of the situation can be attributed to the wise guidance given James by Robert Cecil, first baron Cecil of Essenden, and the son of Elizabeth’s wise councilor, Lord Burghley. When Cecil died in 1612, the king lost his most astute adviser. As evidenced in his strong belief in the divine right of kings, James had a special interest in religious matters. In 1604, he presided over the Hampton Court Conference, which produced a new and definitive Protestant version of sacred Scripture known as the King James Bible. For a man skilled in the modern arts of political intrigue, he was a firm believer in witches and in 1604 made witchcraft a capital offense, without benefit of clergy. In foreign affairs James’s later years were overshadowed by the eruption of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, a struggle between Catholic and Protestant nations that ravaged central Europe, where many of the battles were fought. Although James’s daughter Elizabeth was wed to Frederick V, the elector Palatine, one of the Protestant champions, James’s son Charles was engaged to marry the daughter of the Catholic king Philip III of Spain in 1623. Ultimately domestic opposition in England ended the arrangements for a Spanish marriage. Charles instead would become engaged to wed Henrietta Maria of France, the daughter of Henry IV, king of France and Navarre, who had brought an end to the Wars of Religion in France, and the sister of King Louis XIII. Although often derided as a witless king, James I proved himself to be a wise ruler. He managed to keep Scotland and England united, though bitter enemies for centuries. On the world stage in 1607, English voyagers to the New World arrived in what is now the United States and established the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown. Thus, when James I died in March 1625, he not only could lay claim to the union of England and Scotland, but to the foundation of what would become the British Empire. See also Bible translations; Stuart, House of. Further reading: Ashley, Maurice. The Stuarts: The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England. Antonia, Fraser, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999; Fraser, Antonia. Mary, Queen of Scots. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969; Guy, John. Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart. New York: Mariner Books, 2004; Hibbert, Christopher. The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius of the Golden Age. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1991; Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Codevilla, M. Angelo, trans. and ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. John Murphy James II (1633–1701) Catholic Stuart king of England James II was the second son of King Charles I and his wife, Queen Henrietta Maria. Like that of his elder brother, Charles, who had been born in 1630, James’s childhood was blighted by the events of the English Civil War. In 1645, the royalist city of Oxford was taken by the forces of Parliament, and the young James, duke of York, who lived there, was taken prisoner. In April 1648, James escaped London and fled to Holland. On news of the execution of his father, Charles I, in January 1649, James’s elder brother, Charles, prince of Wales, was immediately proclaimed king. James would make his mark as a soldier. By the 1650s, Oliver Cromwell had gone far to becoming the leading member on the side of Parliament and soon styled himself the almost-regal Lord Protector. James gained military service in the French army under the great Marshal Henri de Turenne, but when Cromwell entered England into an alliance with the French, James left the service of Louis XIV and joined the army of France’s enemies, the Spanish. The next year marked the beginning of another chapter in James’s life. On May 29, 1660, his brother was welcomed into London on his 30th birthday as Charles II. When the English went to war with the Dutch in 1665, James proved himself on sea as the lord high admiral. James was an able and determined military leader in the naval battles against the Dutch. In England, however, James did not fare as well. His open conversion in 1688 to Roman Catholicism alienated both of the growing parties in Parliament. Two Test Acts, requiring one in effect to pledge allegiance to the state-sponsored Anglican Church, barred Roman Catholics from serving in either of the two Houses of Parliament. James, clearly perceiving this as an attack, resigned his office of lord high admiral in 1673. Attempts were made to press through Parliament an Exclusion Bill to bar James from the throne, but the bill ultimately failed. By the time Charles II died on February 6, 1685, the Tories and Whigs were both resolved to receive James James II 187 as king (James VII of Scotland and James II of England). Both political parties were resigned to his practicing his Roman Catholic faith as long as he and his second wife, Mary of Modena, did so privately. On April 23, 1685, he was crowned king in Westminster Abbey and Mary of Modena his queen. In June, James, duke of Monmouth, landed in England to claim the throne as the Protestant claimant. Monmouth’s forces were quickly defeated. Within three months, James began to squander the goodwill he had enjoyed at his coronation. Rather than behaving magnanimously toward Monmouth, he had him beheaded as a common traitor. Additionally, he unleashed a political reign of terror, known as the Bloody Assizes in the West Country. In November 1685 James shut down Parliament to rid himself of the debates and challenges to his decisions. James also seemed determined to disestablish the Anglican Church in England. Magdalen College, in Oxford University, became a Roman Catholic seminary to train native English Catholic priests. James also presented a Declaration of Indulgence designed to lift legal restrictions from those who did not profess the Anglican creed. He required the declaration to be read in all Anglican churches and when the archbishop of Canterbury William Sancroft and six other Anglican bishops protested, they were imprisoned in the Tower of London. While it appeared that the throne would go to James’s Protestant daughter Mary, or the hereditary ruler of the Netherlands, William of Orange, the English people hoped that the Protestant religion would survive James’s rule. However on June 10, 1688, a son was born and Whig and Tory leaders realized that a Catholic would be the next monarch of England. On the day the bishops were acquitted, Thomas Osborne, the first earl of Danby, a Tory, and six other Tory and Whig party members signed a secret invitation requesting William to invade England and, with Mary, overthrow James. On November 5, 1688, helped by what would be called the “Protestant Wind,” William’s invasion fleet anchored at Torbay. Danby led a rising for William in the north of England, while rebellion broke out in other parts of the country. The army’s leading commander, John Churchill, also gave his support to William. James fled England to seek asylum with Louis XIV in France in December 1688. William and Mary were welcomed in London and, on February 13, 1689, formally proclaimed king and queen of England by Parliament. See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Glorious Revolution; Reformation, the; William III. Further reading: Ashley, Maurice. The Stuarts: The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England. Antonia Fraser, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999; Ashley, Mike. A Brief History of British Kings and Queens. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2005; Fraser, Antonia. Cromwell. London: Grove Press, 2001; ———. Charles II. London: Orion, 2004; Hill, J. R., and Brian Ranft. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Williamson, David. National Portrait Gallery History of the Kings and Queens of England. London: National Portrait Gallery, 1998. John Murphy Jamestown Jamestown was the first permanent English colony in the New World, founded in 1607 under the direction of the Virginia Company. Although the settlement struggled to survive at first, the discovery of tobacco made Jamestown a success and it remained the capital of the Virginia colony until 1699. In 1605, a group of influential merchants seeking to profit materially from the natural resources of America petitioned England’s King James I for permission to settle in America. The following April, the king chartered the London Company (later known as the Virginia Company) and granted it the right to settle a colony between 34 and 41 degrees north latitude. The charter created a joint-stock company, which allowed the merchants to seek investors and operate as a private business. The charter provided that the colony would be governed by two councils, one in America and one in England, and guaranteed that colonists would enjoy the “liberties, franchises, and immunities” of English subjects. On April 26, 1607, the Sarah Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery arrived in Virginia carrying 105 passengers, who named their settlement Jamestown after the king. From the start, the colony was beset by troubles. The Chesapeake Bay region was then controlled by a confederation of Algonquian Indian tribes led by the paramount chief Powhatan. Powhatan was instrumental in helping provision the colonists in the early years, but the two groups often came into conflict thereafter. More immediately, the colonists died in large number of disease and starvation: Only 38 of the original passengers survived “seasoning,” or their first winter in America. Ultimately, the colonists proved unwilling to grow their own food, preferring instead to search for gold, leading to internal dissension. 188 Jamestown A series of governors tried with varying degrees of success to salvage the colony, including most notably John Smith, who ordered that “he will not work, shall not eat.” Yet such attempts often proved fruitless such as in the winter of 1609–10, appropriately termed “the starving time,” when desperate colonists turned to cannibalism and ate the dead. Only the constant infusion of new colonists kept Jamestown afloat. Relations with the Indians improved in 1614 when Powhatan’s daughter Pocahontas married John Rolfe, yet it was Rolfe’s introduction of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) two years later that finally made the colony profitable. Because tobacco sold in London for five to 10 times as much as it cost to grow, soon “the marketplace and streets, and all other spare places were planted with tobacco.” Within a decade, Virginia became the wealthiest and most populous colony. Despite Jamestown’s success, the Virginia Company teetered on the verge of bankruptcy. In the late 1610s, the company tried to make the settlement more profitable by giving more control to colonists. It instituted the headright system, which gave land to settlers, and the House of Burgesses, the first representative assembly established in America. Yet when a violent Indian attack in 1622 wiped out a fifth of the colony’s population, the king revoked the company’s charter and, in Jamestown 189 John Smith’s map of Virginia first appeared in 1612. The first decade of Jamestown’s existence was fraught with trouble and financial disaster. It was not until the colonists discovered tobacco that the settlement became profitable for the Virginia Company. 1624, he placed Virginia under the control of the English government. See also tobacco in Colonial British America. Further reading: Billings, Warren M., John E. Selby, and Thad W. Tate. Colonial Virginia: A History. White Plains, NY: KTO Press, 1986; Townsend, Camilla. Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma. New York: Hill and Wang, 2004; Vaughan, Alden T. American Genesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1975. John G. McCurdy Janissaries Following the custom of expanding empires everywhere, the Ottoman sultans had routinely taken one-fifth of the booty taken in conquest for themselves, enslaving some of those conquered as footsoldiers for further military conquests. However as the empire took control of predominantly Muslim territories, Islamic legal injunctions against the enslavement of other Muslims made the old practice impossible. Therefore, Muslim theologians under Murad I (reigned 1362–89) innovated a levy whereby young non-Muslim boys were taken into the sultan’s service. These enforced recruits were called Yeni Cheri, new soldiers, or Janissaries. On a rotation system of about every five years, a levy or devshirme of young boys between the ages of eight and 20 was collected from mostly Christian areas, especially in the Balkans. All the recruits were taught Turkish and converted to Islam. The most able of the young boys were taken to be educated in the palace to become servants and, sometimes, high officials within the vast Ottoman bureaucracy. The rest were given rigorous military training and became a formidable fighting force. The Janissaries owed their sole allegiance to the sultan. The Ottoman Empire was one of the first so-called gunpowder empires, and the Janissaries were known for their skills with the most advanced weaponry of the age. The Janissaries enjoyed considerable legal privileges, including the right to own land and to pass on property to their heirs under Islamic law. Gradually the Janissaries increased in numbers and power and became the core of the Ottoman army with increased pay and benefits. Spread throughout the empire, the Janissaries lived communally in military barracks and were the main protectors of the Ottoman government throughout the provinces. When the empire was at its zenith, the Janissaries were loyal protectors and champions of the sultan. However, as the empire declined and the sultans became increasingly weak and corrupt, the Janissaries became a political force in their own right and frequently rose up in armed rebellions. The overturning of the huge cooking pots used by all Janissary garrisons became the signal of such revolts. In some instances, the Janissaries even overthrew sultans to replace them with candidates of their own selection. See also Ottoman Empire (1450–1750). Further reading: Nicolle, David. Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300–1774. London: Osprey, 1983; Nicolle, David, and Christa Hook. The Janissaries. London: Osprey, 1995. Janice J. Terry Jesuits in Asia The missionary enterprise of the Jesuits in Asia is comprehensible only against the background of three foundational principles. The first two are from the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the order: Following Jesus as a Jesuit entails missionary outreach, and being a missionary implies cultural adaptation because Jesus adapted himself to the human condition. The third theological principle is that missionary activity should reflect the shared life of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) as documented in the Formula of the Institute and Constitutions. The nascent Society of Jesus was yet to receive full papal approbation (September 27, 1540) when a request arrived from João III the Pious, king of Portugal, for Jesuits to work in the Portuguese domains of Asia. Ignatius of Loyola chose two of his first companions, Simão Rodrigues and Nicolas Bobadilla, for the mission. However, before they could leave for Portugal, Bobadilla fell ill. Providentially, Francis Xavier was then in Rome and Ignatius decided to send him instead. The king of Portugal, impressed by the two Jesuits, decided to keep Rodrigues in Lisbon. Xavier, accompanied by Micer Paul, a secular priest recently admitted into the Society of Jesus, and Francisco Mansilhas, a Jesuit aspirant, set sail for India. They finally reached Goa in India on May 6, 1542. Xavier would labor in Asia for 10 years as a missionary, baptizing and catechizing the inhabitants of the Fishery Coast of southern India; Malacca on the western coast of the Malay Peninsula; the Moluccas, also known as the “Spice Islands”; and Japan. While in Japan, Xavier heard about China and resolved to preach the Christian message there. While awaiting Chinese government permission to 190 Janissaries land, he died on the island of Sancian in 1552, unable to fulfill his dream of converting the Chinese to Christ. That dream would be partially realized not much later as thousands of Jesuits of various nationalities followed Xavier in the Asian missionary enterprise. Missions were conducted in West Asia, for example, with the appointment of Jesuits as papal legates in establishing relations with the Maronites and in negotiating church unity with Orthodox, Nestorian, and Monophysite Churches. But the majority of Jesuit missionaries worked farther afield, chiefly in South Asia and in East Asia. After India, Jesuits would find themselves laboring in places in peninsular (Malacca, Indochina) and insular (Indonesia, the Philippines) Southeast Asia, and in Japan and China. The primary goal was of course the spread of Christianity, but the diverse cultures who populated the huge continent called for various missionary strategies and tactics. The chief architect of the Asian missionary enterprise was an Italian Jesuit named Alessandro Valignano. He called for cultural adaptation to Asian ways where this was legitimate and did not compromise the Christian message. Perhaps the most significant cultural adaptation was the use of Asian languages in the preaching of Christ and teaching of doctrine. They also extended this cultural adaptation to the manner of dress, civil customs, and ordinary life of their target audience. His principles were put to good use by such as Matteo Ricci and Michele Ruggieri. Aside from exploiting European sciences and arts of their day to gain entrance into the educated elite of China, Ricci and his companions decided to study the Confucian classics esteemed by the Mandarin ruling class. In a similar way, the Jesuits working in the south of India decided on a two-pronged strategy that enabled them to reach out to both the higher and lower social castes, tailoring their manner of living to gain initial acceptance from their respective audiences. “Dressed in cloth of red-ochre, a triangular sandal mark on his forehead, high wooden sandals on his feet,” Roberto de Nobili lived in the manner of a Hindu man of God (sannyasi), learned Sanskrit, and memorized the Vedas so that he could share the message of Christ and his church with the Indian people. In other Asian places not as highly developed in civilization and culture, the Jesuits were animated by the same principles of cultural adaptation. In the Philippines, they creatively replicated strategies that were used elsewhere. Because local populations were dispersed far and wide, the Jesuits encouraged people to set up permanent communities in planned settlements (a method they used in Latin America called reduction), thus laying the foundation of many towns and cities that exist today. They also set up schools wherever these were needed and constructed churches and other buildings that transformed European architectural designs to suit Asian artistic sensibilities. They learned the various local languages and dialects and produced grammars, vocabularies, and dictionaries, thus systematizing the study not just of the languages themselves but of the cultures of the peoples that they were seeking to convert. They wrote books that mapped the ethnography of Asia and were keen observers of Asian ways and traditions, including their interaction with the natural environment. The Jesuit missionary enterprise in Asia met with obstacles along the way. Some of these obstacles arose from European ethnocentric fears and prejudices that burdened the church of their times. Cultural adaptation was denounced as syncretism, and the missionaries themselves were often at loggerheads on the appropriate strategies to use in mission work. It was not always clear for example whether Chinese categories used to translate Latin ones were without ambiguity, but a lack of understanding, trust, and generosity created a poisoned atmosphere that did not produce the requisite witness to Christian charity. The distance between Rome and Asia proved to be not only a geographical problem but also a psychological barrier that prevented Jesuits in Asia 191 The Jesuit orphanage in Shanghai, China. Jesuit missionaries were sent throughout Asia to spread the word of Jesus. church authorities from being more sympathetic to the needs of the missionary enterprise in Asia. Furthermore the political, economic, and social burden imposed by Portuguese and Spanish royal patronage of the church in the Indies proved too heavy at times to carry; Rome itself would be forced to set up the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith in 1622 to loosen the viselike grip of the European monarchs who wished to manipulate the missionary enterprise for political and economic gain. Also, Jesuits allowed themselves to be caught in political controversies of their host countries, thus inevitably creating enemies for themselves among members of the ruling classes. In 1759 the Portuguese king expelled all Jesuits working in Portugal and Portuguese Asia. In Spain, the Spanish king followed suit and banished the Jesuits from his domains in 1767. Finally, in 1773, Pope Clement XIV, under extreme political pressure from the Bourbon monarchs of Europe, could no longer prevent the inevitable from happening. Through the bull Redemptor ac hominis, the pope suppressed the Society of Jesus, thus bringing an end to their missionary work in Asia. This work would be resumed only in the 19th century, when Jesuits would return to their former mission fields now besieged by new historical forces. See also Goa, colonization of; Malacca, Portuguese and Dutch colonization of. Further reading: Bangert, William V. A History of the Society of Jesus. St. Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1986; O’Malley, John, Gauvin Alexander Bailey, Steven J. Harris, and T. Frank Kennedy, eds. The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts 1540–1773. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999; O’Malley, John, and Gauvin Alexander Bailey. The Jesuits and the Arts. Philadelphia, PA: St. Joseph’s University Press, 2005. Tony de Castro Jiménez de Quesada, Gonzalo (c. 1495–1579) Spanish conquistador The man who conquered New Granada (modern-day Colombia) for the Spanish Empire, Gonzalo Jiménez (or Ximenes or Giménez) de Quesada, was one of the least controversial of the famous conquistadores and one of the few to write in detail about his experiences (although the book has been lost). Jiménez de Quesada was born in either Córdoba or Granada in Spain. He was trained in the law in Granada, which had been captured from the Moors in the last stage of the Reconquest of Spain (Reconquista) in 1492. After many years as a lawyer, he was offered the position of magistrate and auditor to the province of New Andalucia, the northern part of South America, with a base at Santa Marta in modern-day Colombia. There Governor Don Pedro de Lugo put Quesada in charge of an expedition to find some land suitable for settlement as Santa Marta, despite being located on the Pearl Coast. Of the 1,000 men capable of bearing arms, Quesada took charge of 800. He organized the men into work parties and they built six rivercraft. Quesada divided his men into two groups; 200 manned the vessels and sailed up the Magdalena River, while the remaining 600 with him trekked inland, leaving on April 6, 1536. In spite of the heat, all the men wore heavily padded quilted cotton to protect them from arrows; even the horses were covered in the improvised armor. Quesada had arranged a meeting point up the Magdalena River where the men on foot would meet with the boats, which carried much of the supplies. The land group were slowed down by the jungle, occasional attacks by Indians, insects, and disease. However they reached the agreed meeting point on time but the sea party was not there. After waiting a few days, Quesada urged the men to continue inland, rather than return to Santa Marta. Although he had no military training, Quesada’s years as a lawyer enabled him to present the matter in a persuasive manner, and all acquiesced. The men were desperately short of food, and there are the usual accounts of eating snakes, lizards, frogs, and even some dogs captured from the Indians, as well as boiling down leather harnesses to satiate their hunger. Expedition Saved The expedition was saved when the sea party turned up soon afterward, having been delayed by tropical storms. Quesada was then able to send the sickest men back to Santa Marta, replenish the supplies of the others, and press on with the expedition, which, in January 1537, reached the foothills of the Andes. After covering 400 miles in eight months, there were only 166 men and 60 horses left. Quesada then had his men elect him as their captain-general, and they were determined to conquer land for themselves. Unlike many other conquistadores, Quesada forbade his men to slaughter Indians, urging them to treat them humanely. However, Quesada was not averse to looting Indian temples, which were often covered in gold and precious stones. After one Indian chief, Bogotá, was killed in battle, the Spanish captured his suc- 192 Jiménez de Quesada, Gonzalo cessor, Sagipa, whom they offered to free for a large ransom in gold. Soon afterward, Quesada heard that Sagipa was planning to trick him, and he had the chief executed. The nearby land was then declared conquered “in the name of his most sovereign emperor, Charles V.” A small township was then built, which Quesada named as Santa Fe de Bogotá (it was long believed that Quesada was born at Santa Fe, in Spain). Having established his own town, Quesada was eager to return to Santa Marta and have the conquest officially acknowledged. Before he could do so, two other conquistador parties arrived. One, led by Sebastián de Belalcázar, one of the men who had served under Francisco Pizarro, arrived from Quito, having founded the cities of Pasto, Popayan, and Cali. The other, led by a German adventurer, Nicholas Federman, on an expedition paid for by the Welser financiers of Germany, who had been granted a concession by Charles V, had come from Venezuela. The three forces—that of Quesada, and the two new arrivals—were all about the same size, and they all realized that any fight would probably leave the victor, with numbers seriously depleted, at risk of attack from the Chibcha Indians, who still lived in the area. Sense prevailed and the three decided to return to Spain and put their claims to the king of Spain, who would be able to arbitrate the matter. It seems that Quesada would have been the man who suggested this and also thought that he would have the best hope of winning any litigation. Quesada then returned to the coast and in July 1539 sailed from Cartagena back to Spain. In Madrid, all three conquistadores failed to win the land. Don Pedro de Lugo, who had been a friend of Quesada, had died and his son, Luís, who had abandoned Santa Marta many years earlier after having stolen vast amounts of gold and emeralds from the Indians, was given title to his father’s land, and to the area found by Quesada. Quesada was appointed marshal of New Granada, and an alderman of Bogotá, the city he had founded. Returning to New Granada, as the new Spanish colony was called, Quesada became one of the most influential men in the region, where he was well known for being critical of the rapaciousness of the large landowners, and also that of some officials. Many people came to him for advice and it was not until 1569, when he was in his 70s, that Quesada decided to lead one last expedition. This was to try to locate the famous El Dorado, which was said to be 500 miles southeast of Bogotá. There, an Indian king was said to cover himself in gold dust and then wash it all off in a lake. The legend had long captivated many people in Europe and the king of Spain agreed to help with the expedition in exchange for a share in the proceeds. The expedition had 300 mounted soldiers, 1,500 Indian porters, several hundred black African slaves, 1,100 horses and mules, 600 cattle, and 800 sheep. Nearly three years later, Quesada led 28 men back to Bogotá. On the journey several thousand Spanish, Indians, and Africans had died, and others had fled into the jungle. Disease, Indians, and wild animals had taken their toll and even Quesada had contracted leprosy. He was also faced with a massive bill—60,000 ducats—for the failed expedition. Devastated by his failure, Quesada retired to his country house, La Suesca, where he wrote of his life, in the hope that sales might help pay off his debts. He died on February 16, 1579, of leprosy. His book was lost. The township that Quesada had founded is now the city of Bogotá (current population 7 million), and one of the main roads in the city is Avenida Jiménez de Quesada. See also voyages of discovery. Further reading: Cunninghame Grahame, W. B. The Conquest of New Granada: Being the Life of Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada. London: Heinemann, 1922; Rodriguez Freyle, Juan. The Conquest of New Granada. London: Folio Society, 1961; von Hagen, Victor W. The Golden Man: The Quest for El Dorado. Farnborough, Hampshire: Saxon House, 1974. Justin Corfield João III the Pious (1502–1557) king of Portugal Born in Lisbon on June 6, 1502, to King Manuel I and Maria of Aragon (the daughter of Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain), João’s relationship with his father that was strained, especially after Manuel decided to marry João’s betrothed, Leonor, sister of Charles I of Spain (Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire known as Charles V), instead of letting his son marry her. João was a very religious man, a trait that led him to continue to push for the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition to Portugal. With the death of his father, João was crowned king December 19, 1521. One of his first actions was to arrange his marriage to Catarina, also the sister of Charles I of Spain. At the same time, he arranged to have his sister, Isabel, marry Charles. When his daughter was of age, he married her to Philip of Spain. João João III the Pious 193 used these marriages, along with very large dowries, to strengthen Portugal’s ties with Spain, which he hoped would protect Portugal from Spanish ambitions, even though Spain was not really a threat to Portugal at this time. João fathered nine children with Catarina, none of whom survived him. Portugal had been trying for some time to build an empire in Morocco. Unfortunately Morocco was costing Portugal more in men and money then it was making for them. It took João 20 years to decide to withdraw from Morocco. During that time, Portugal’s Indian possessions, especially Goa, received only minimal support. Portugal’s Indian possessions were their primary source of income. India continued to receive fewer resources and attention then other areas of the Portuguese empire. In 1535, working with the Genoese, João helped raise a fleet that destroyed a Muslim pirate fleet based in Tunis. He was less successful against the French pirates who preyed on his ships carrying spice back from India. Being a religious man, João worked hard to convince the pope to authorize the Inquisition in Portugal, that the pope did in 1536. One primary target were the new Christians (Jews who had converted to Christianity), many of whom were members of the middle class. The persecution of this class had a detrimental effect on Portugal’s tax base by eroding it. The Portuguese claimed to be the first Europeans to arrive in Japan, landing there in 1543 and establishing a base in 1550 at Nagasaki. Also during João reign, the Portuguese started to colonize Brazil. In an attempt to correct administrative problems in India, João appointed Vasco da Gama viceroy for India in 1524. João wanted da Gama to clean up the corruption in India, as he started to do upon his arrival there. Unfortunately da Gama died after only six months in India. None of João’s sons outlived him. Consequently when he passed away on June 11, 1557, his three-year-old grandson, Sebastião, succeeded him. Further reading: Anderson, James M. The History of Portugal. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000; Diffie, Bailey W., and George D. Winius. Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977; Passos, John Dos. The Portugal Story: Three Centuries of Exploration and Discovery. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969; Wheeler, Douglas L. Historical Dictionary of Portugal. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2002. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. John III (1624–1696) king of Poland John III was the most well known of the 11 elected kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and one of only four Poles among them. John was a notable military talent, his reign marked by a significant deterioration in the governing capacity of the republic’s legislature, whose members began to abuse their power to veto any proposed legislation without explanation during his reign. In general, John III was more known for his military than for his governmental or political achievements, but like all Polish monarchs of this period, he was decisively restrained by the commonwealth’s recalcitrant nobles. Born in Olesko (near L’viv, Ukraine) to a noble family, John III studied at the University of Kraków. As did many Poles of the early modern period, he spent an extended period of travel and study in western Europe. His maternal grandfather had been a significant military commander, but John III appears to have entered the military first in response to the Chmielnicki Uprising. This uprising was a Ukrainian nationalist revolt that began in 1648 and became a civil war that significantly weakened the commonwealth, allowing Sweden to invade Poland shortly before the war’s conclusion in 1655. During this period, John III resided briefly at the Ottoman court as Polish envoy, returning to command a Polish regiment that briefly capitulated to the Swedes before reverting to Polish allegiance in 1656. John III took part in the factionalist court politics of the period on the side of the French faction but remained loyal to the Crown during the Lubomirski Rebellion, a revolt against the reforming initiatives of King Jan II Kazimierz Vasa. Although John III was defeated while defending Vasa, his loyalty during the rebellion led to repeated promotions after 1665, all the way to commander in chief of the Polish army in 1668. This was the same year he married a French noblewoman, with whom he would father seven children. John III distinguished himself in repeated border skirmishes with the Ottoman Empire. After a great victory at Chocim in 1673 and the near-simultaneous death of the previous king, John III was elected king and crowned on February 2, 1676. Because the Swedish invasion had ruined the Polish economy, he moved to foster a tense peace with the Ottoman Empire after 1675. Some historians have suggested that he sought to reunite Prussia with the Polish Crown at this time, but whatever his plans, Polish magnates would not support them. Over their resistance, he enforced a series of military reforms 194 John III that included the modernization of the Polish artillery. John III’s most important victory over the Turks came at Vienna in 1683, when he successfully attacked an army about 50 percent larger than his own. Military struggles continued to influence his later years, although he became ill after 1691, thus enabling the intrigues conducted by the Polish nobles on behalf of various European power at court to flourish in his final years. This state of affairs made it impossible for the Polish government to conduct business effectively, thus accelerating the coming collapse of the Polish state. John III’s successor, August II of Saxony, became king only with Russian support. Further reading: Davies, Norman. Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; Morton, John Bingham. Sobieski: King of Poland. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1932. Susan R. Boettcher Julius II (1443–1513) pope Pope Julius II was born Giuliano della Rovere on December 5, 1443, at Albissola, Italy, and died November 28, 1503, in Rome. He was of Roman and Greek heritage and followed his uncle (the future Pope Sixtus IV) into the Franciscan order and was educated at Perugia. Rovere was elevated to cardinal in 1471. Although a bishop, he became the father of three daughters, a scandal even then. He was a skilled papal diplomat and was sent to restore papal authority in Umbria; to France and the Netherlands to settle the Burgundian inheritance; and to France to obtain help against the Turks and free Cardinal Balue, a prisoner of Louis XI, king of France. In the next two conclaves, he fought against the election of Pope Innocent VIII and Pope Alexander VI and thus earned disdain from them. Rovere was elected pope on October 31, 1503. He saw as the chief aim of his papacy to extend the temporal power of the pope and fought the influence of Casare Borgia and the Republic of Venice, entering the League of Cambrai in 1509 to continue this fight. He is chiefly remembered for his establishment of the Papal States. He also laid the cornerstone of St. Peter’s Basilica. See also Borgia family. Further reading: Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002; Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. Chronicles of the Popes: A Reign-by- Reign Record of the Papacy from St. Peter to the Present. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1997; Pham, John-Peter. Heirs of the Fisherman: Behind the Scenes of Papal Death and Succession. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; Reardon, Wendy J. The Deaths of the Popes: Comprehensive Accounts, Including Funerals, Burial Places, and Epitaphs. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2004. James Russell justification by faith The term justification by faith refers to a Christian doctrine that has its roots in the Bible but became crucially important during the Reformation controversy in the 16th century. In recent years, progress has been made on resolving this key issue, which divides the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. In order to understand the term, it is helpful to take it apart. Justification is a word often used in a legal sense. A person may be justified in breaking the speed limit if it was necessary in order to get someone to the hospital. Instead of getting a fine, he or she is excused before a judge who has authority to declare that the person is not guilty for a particular reason. Faith is a word that implies belief and trust. People have faith that their parents want the best for them. Justification by faith then refers to Christians’ belief that they have been declared or made “not guilty” by reason of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. It has to do with the foundational aspects of a person’s relationship to God according to Christian teaching. Background The concept of justification by faith is found in the Bible, most clearly in the letters of Paul. His letter to the Romans uses the example of the biblical figure Abraham. Abraham believed in the promises of God, and as Paul puts it, that faith “was credited to him as righteousness” (Romans 4:22). St. Paul applies the example of Abraham to all Christians, holding that Abraham’s faith was the same faith as a Christian’s, looking forward to God’s saving action for his people. Justification is a freely given gift of God. Paul also drew a contrast between faith and works (or good deeds) in justification. The good deeds done by a person, while counting for something, count nothing in his or her meriting eternal life. On this issue turned much in the Reformation controversy described later. But if the gift is freely given, why do most Christians teach that some people go to heaven and others to justification by faith 195 hell? What is the role of human will? If we need to do something in order to get to heaven, how much do we need to do? Will it be enough? If we have done something in order to merit eternal life, does that take away from what Jesus did on the cross? While the questions may seem finicky, much ink and blood have been spilled over them. In the centuries following the events of the Bible, those very questions resulted in various theological points of view. Augustine of Hippo is best known for his clarification and refinement of the doctrine of justification by faith, which set the stage for the rest of Western Christianity. Against his opponents (particularly those advocates of the Manichean and Pelagian heresies), Augustine taught that a person has free will, but one that is limited and tainted by the human condition. Thus a person participates in justification, but more in the sense of standing before a judge. Echoing St. Paul, Augustine would hold that there is no good work a person can do to balance out his or her justly deserved sentence. Martin Luther and the Reformation More than 1,000 years after St. Augustine the issue of justification by faith boiled into a raging controversy, which resulted in the fracturing of the Roman Catholic Church. In the years preceding 1517, the sale of indulgences had become increasingly popular. Indulgences were certificates issued under the authority of the church that absolved people from certain penalties due to their sins. These were now sold, and those selling them promised forgiveness of all sins and seemingly an easy entry to heaven. While this was not official church teaching, the way the indulgences were sold implied this easy entry. Martin Luther objected strenuously to the sale of indulgences, arguing that a piece of paper could not gain entry to heaven, since nothing a person could do could result in entry to heaven. God’s grace alone was the cause of the justification of the sinner. While Luther first intended a theological debate, his argumentative style and the various political undercurrents of the time resulted in a defensive posture on the side of the Catholic Church. All agreed that one is justified by faith, but the nuances of the role of works (and the related issue of indulgences) were positions of sharp disagreement. Luther was excommunicated for his beliefs in 1521, but that did not put the issue to rest. Several attempts to reconcile the issue were made, with the Marburg Colloquy in 1538 nearly bringing the issue to a positive resolution. Council of Trent (1545–1563) When the Council of Trent was called by Pope Paul III, there was initial hope that the issues between Catholic and Protestant would be resolved. Luther had originally called for such a council in the early years of the Reformation, but by 1545 there was little hope that the council would include Protestant participation. Nevertheless, when the council took up the issue, it produced a fairly nuanced statement on justification by faith. The council was concerned to refute the Lutheran position but had to take care not to condemn positions held by differing schools within the Catholic Church (most notably the Augustinians). Long discussions regarding the wording of the statement were held, and finally after seven months of debate, the statement was issued. In the statement, there was a definition of justification by faith, and then followed 33 Canons, each ending with “let him be anathema” (cast out of the church). It is interesting that the very first canon states something with which Catholic and Protestant would heartily agree: If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema. On the other hand, Canon 9 was aimed well at the Lutheran position: If anyone shall say that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will: let him be anathema. Thus the Council of Trent worked to clarify Catholic teaching and draw a firm line between it and Lutheran teaching. Between the end of the Council of Trent in 1563 and the Vatican II Council in 1963, there were few significant changes to the positions of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Vatican II did not revisit the issue of justification by faith, but did open the door for further dialogue with other churches. Dialogues began in earnest in 1967 patterned after dialogues that had been held in the previous 40 years by various Protestant churches, bringing together both leaders and theologians from the churches. Such dialogues are limited in their authority. Agreement on an issue in a dialogue is 196 justification by faith similar to two ambassadors’ negotiating an agreement on behalf of their country. If the ambassadors come to an agreement, the agreement must still be ratified by the leaders of the countries before it is accepted. Dialogues were held on the specific issue of justification by faith between the Lutherans and Catholics both in the United States and in Germany. The result of these dialogues was the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The Joint Declaration did not “solve” all the differences between Catholic and Protestant on the issue, but did resolve some of the differences that were matters of misunderstanding and worked to provide a common basis for further dialogue. See also Anabaptism; Calvin, John; Charles V; Counter- Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Eck, Johann Maier von; Melancthon, Philip. Further reading: Anderson, H. George, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, eds. Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985; Lehman, Karl, Michael Root, and William Rusch, eds. Justification by Faith: Do the Sixteenth Century Condemnations Still Apply? New York: Continuum, 2000; Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, eds. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000; Mc- Grath, Alistar. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vols 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 1986; Olin, John C., ed. A Reformation Debate. Bronx, NY: Fordham University Press, 2000. Bruce D. Franson

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

Jackson, Andrew (1767–1845) American president Although Andrew Jackson would not be elected president until 1828, the Jacksonian age can be said to have begun on January 8, 1815, when troops under Jackson’s command successfully repelled a much larger British force at the Battle of New Orleans, sealing the War of 1812 treaty that had been signed a month before in Ghent, Belgium. Americans greeted peace with a new optimism about the future of the nation, and that optimism helped prompt developments in the public and private sectors that would dramatically change American life. Those changes, however, created a backlash spurred by concerns that the achievements of the generation of the American Revolution were being lost. Those who feared economic changes generally cheered the ongoing political democratization that has often been associated with Jackson’s name. MILITARY LEADERSHIP Andrew Jackson was an unusual fi gure to be associated with a democratic movement. Born in 1767, probably in South Carolina, to a widowed mother, he participated as a young teenager in the American Revolution and spent some time as a prisoner of war. That experience, coupled with the deaths of his mother and brother from disease (deaths that Jackson blamed on the British), led Jackson to distrust the British and the idea of aristocracy. Nevertheless, Jackson made his place in the world as a lawyer, politician, and slaveholding planter, ultimately rising to prominence in his adopted state of Tennessee. Jackson would also assume leadership of the Tennessee militia, leading it during the War of 1812 against those among the Creek Indians who had allied with the British as part of their attempt to resist further American incursions on their lands. After the war, Jackson would be called to service to subdue other Creek and Seminole, and he entered Spanish Florida in pursuit of that goal, causing an international incident, but paving the way for Spain to cede Florida to the United States. His national fame, however, rested on his stunning victory at New Orleans, where he lost just 71 men, compared to British casualties of more than 2,000. Even as Jackson’s men were assembling in New Orleans, a third event that would profoundly shape the age of Jackson was taking place—a meeting of the Federalist Party in Hartford, Connecticut. Although calmer voices would prevail, some of the sentiments voiced during this Hartford Convention approached treason to many Americans, seeming to suggest the utter futility of resisting the British and the need for New England to secede and sue for a separate peace. The demise of the Federalist Party ensued amid public outrage. EARLY POLITICAL ALIGNMENT As the Federalist Party faded from the political scene, a group of Democratic-Republicans with nationalist ideas similar to the former Federalists took control of the now one-party nation. These National Republicans embraced a stronger standing army, a series of internal J improvements to aid in the movement of troops and goods, a revenue tariff with protective elements, and, most important, a Second Bank of the United States to replace the Federalist’s First Bank, which the Democratic-Republicans had gleefully allowed to die just fi ve years previously. For a short period after the war, a sense of optimism prevailed, as the leaders of the country began to come together in a common vision of the public good. That optimism was punctured by the panic of 1819. As the ripples from the panic made their way across America, questions arose as to its source. For many Americans, a properly working political economy would have no panics; therefore, a panic signaled a failure of that political economy, generally the result of the political system giving to some person, or group of persons, special privileges. Their eyes rested on the Second Bank of the United States, to whom many privileges of doing business, including limited liability and the issuance of money, had been given by the U.S. Congress. The sense of many on the periphery of society that some kind of cabal was controlling the government and privileging the few at the expense of the many was reinforced by the perception that those in Congress exercised unwarranted power in the selection of the president via the congressional caucus. The caucus system would take a hit in 1824, nominating William Crawford of Georgia. Among the other candidates were John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, obvious congressional insiders, but outsiders coalesced around Jackson’s candidacy. Jackson won a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes, but since no candidate won an electoral majority, presidential selection returned to Congress’s hands. Congress chose Adams as president, and Adams’s selection of Clay as his secretary of state caused Jackson’s supporters to suspect a “corrupt bargain.” For four years, Jackson’s supporters seethed, and, in 1828, elected Jackson the clear winner. In the minds of his supporters, Jackson represented the triumph of the common man; the political races in which he ran certainly drew much greater participation in the political life of the nation. Since the American Revolution, more and more states had eliminated property qualifi cations for voting. Still, as late as 1824, a number of states did not even poll for the presidency but left selection of electors to their state legislatures. In states that did poll, these November elections were generally held separately from state and local campaigns, and voter turnout was often substantially lower—until the Jacksonian era, when both presidential and local elections began to attract more than 90 percent of eligible voters in some states. THREE MAJOR ISSUES OF JACKSON’S PRESIDENCY Jackson’s personal belief that he was the instrument of the people emerged from this popular support and played a signifi cant role in shaping his positions on the three major issues that defi ned his presidency: Indian removal, the nullifi cation crisis, and the Bank war. Indian removal involved the relocation of a number of Native American nations from their lands east of the Mississippi to land in Indian Territory, primarily the modern state of Oklahoma. The plan for removal far predated Jackson, as Thomas Jefferson believed such removal would be necessary to buy time for these nations to become “civilized,” when they would then be assimilated into European-American society. Rather than move farther west, many of these nations attempted to remain on their lands and resist outright assimilation efforts, even while taking on many European-American ways. Their failure to move west angered a racist electorate, Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, rose to national prominence as a hero of the War of 1812. 200 Jackson, Andrew who sought their lands not as much for greed as for the belief that land secured the independence that was the birthright of white men. When nations, particularly the Cherokee, resisted, Jackson was willing to do whatever it took to secure their removal. His approaches included political intrigue within Native American nations and defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court, all the while touting his efforts as necessary to save these nations from their demise. Despite his professions of paternalistic concern for the Native people, Jackson got their land for the many small farmers and large planters who desired it for their own livelihood. Jackson’s response to the nullification crisis also illustrates his majoritarian outlook. When South Carolina attempted to defy a federal tariff, claiming the authority to nullify any federal law, Jackson took it as a personal and national affront, even though his ideological sympathies were with South Carolina. Some of his intransigence was rooted in his personal differences with one of the leaders of South Carolina’s efforts, his own vice president, John C. Calhoun. His stubbornness on this issue was also driven by his belief that South Carolina was defying the will of the American people. Jackson threatened to use federal troops to prevent South Carolina from enforcing nullification, but he would later sign off on a compromise tariff that met many of South Carolina’s demands. As long as South Carolina achieved its ends through the democratic process, Jackson was willing to agree. The fight over the Second Bank of the United States represented the melding of Jackson’s commitment to the will of the people and his supporters’ belief that a cabal of men had taken charge in Washington, doling out special privileges to some. Nothing loomed larger in that belief than the creation of the Second Bank of the United States, chartered in 1816 and blamed by Jackson’s supporters for the panic of 1819. Jackson’s own position on the bank was never clear. As the election of 1832 approached, supporters of the bank realized that if he were reelected, he would be in position to veto the rechartering of the bank that was due in 1836. Bank supporters planned to place the bank up for recharter in 1832. They believed that Jackson would agree to the bank to ensure his reelection; if he opposed the bank, he would sour the electorate, and Henry Clay would be elected and agree to a second recharter bill. Their plan was brilliant but for one false premise—the majority of the American people opposed the bank. Jackson vetoed the bank as a bastion of privileges not afforded to ordinary Americans and won reelection. SEEDS OF DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT Jackson’s supporters were deeply ambivalent about the direction that the American economy and society were heading; the increasing importance of the market revolution economy drove them to support Jackson as a means to limit the market’s penetration into their lives and maintain their independence. But if they were pessimistic about the emerging capitalist society and the creation of a plutocracy, they held an optimistic vision of the continued potential of a democratic nation of small producers. The democratic movement that emerged behind Jackson sought to create its vision of the good society, politically giving voice to the majority will of white men and economically resting on the continued dispossession of the lands of native peoples to provide the independent farms of those white men. Jackson left office in 1837 and died in 1845, but the Democratic Party founded in his wake would continue on. The optimistic spirit of the Jacksonian era would soon be tested by the economic and social transformations of urbanization and industrialization that the Jacksonians proved incapable of preventing and by the great conflagration of the Civil War. See also financial panics in North America; Mississippi River and New Orleans; Native American policies in the United States and Canada; political parties in the United States; War of 1812. Further reading: Feller, Daniel. The Jacksonian Promise: America, 1815–1840. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995; Watson, Harry L. Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America. New York: Hill and Wang, 1990. Richard F. Nation Jefferson, Thomas (1743–1826) American president and statesman Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743, at Shadwell in Albemarle County, Virginia. Jefferson’s father created the first accurate map of the Virginia colony, and when he died in 1757, he left his son 5,000 acres of land. Jefferson studied under several tutors, and in 1760, enrolled himself in the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. He completed his studies there in 1762. Over the next five years, Jefferson studied law and, in 1767, was admitted to the bar. He practiced law for the next seven years. Jefferson, Thomas 201 In 1769 he was elected to the House of Burgesses and began construction on his home at Monticello. He was married on January 1, 1772, to Martha Wayles Skelton. They had six children, only two of whom survived to adulthood. He published Summary View of the Rights of America in 1774, which was his draft of instruction that he felt should be given to Virginia’s delegates to the First Continental Congress, but were considered too radical. He was elected as part of Virginia’s delegation to the First Continental Congress as a backup. Jefferson was elected to the committee charged with writing a Declaration of Independence in addition to Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. Jefferson drafted the initial document and although the other committee members and Congress made changes to it, most of the document was his handiwork. With his return to Virginia, Jefferson joined the House of Delegates on October 7, 1776. He immediately revised the laws of Virginia. Included in the changes was the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, as well as doing away with primogeniture. Jefferson was elected governor of Virginia on June 1, 1779, by the General Assembly, serving two oneyear terms. The offi ce of governor had little power because it was overseen by a committee from the General Assembly. With the loss of the revenue from the export of tobacco and then a drought in 1779 that almost totally destroyed the wheat crop, the colony was suffering. To raise money, the assembly turned to printing money, which only made the situation worse. Jefferson was not interested in serving a third term, but before his replacement could be elected, the American Revolution began, brought to Virginia by Benedict Arnold, who had switched his allegiance to the British. Arnold attacked Richmond as well as military stores; Jefferson did not call out the militia in time to protect the city. With the end of his governorship, Jefferson took some time to be with his family and tend to his farms. He also took time to work on Notes on the State of Virginia, which documented geography, productions, politics, and social life in Virginia. His wife died on September 6, 1782. In November he was appointed to the peace commission in Paris, but his services became unnecessary, and the appointment was withdrawn. He was elected to serve in Congress again in June 1783. While serving in Congress, Jefferson put forward the idea to forbid slavery in the western territories after 1800. He also presented a report on December 20, 1783, on the procedure for negotiating commercial treaties with foreign governments. Because of this report he was appointed to assist Franklin and Adams as they negotiated commercial treaties in Europe; he joined them on August 6. MINISTER TO FRANCE Jefferson replaced Franklin as minister to France in 1785 and held the position until he returned home in October 1789, when he was offered the job of secretary of state by President George Washington, which he accepted. Jefferson became the first secretary of state in March 1790. During his time in office, he came into conflict with Alexander Hamilton over the creation of the Bank of the United States, which Jefferson opposed. Jefferson and Hamilton continued to be at odds throughout The third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson is seen as the major contributor to the Declaration of Independence. 202 Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson’s time in office. A point that both men agreed on was that the United States needed to stay neutral during the French Revolution. Agreeing to stay in office until the end of 1793, Jefferson decided to retire again from public life and return to Monticello. His retirement lasted only a few years. Jefferson was nominated for the presidency in 1796 but lost to political rival John Adams. During these four years, the Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Jefferson interpreted as being designed more to attack his own party than to protect the new country. Writing anonymously, Jefferson and James Madison attacked the acts with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, declaring that the federal government could have no power that was not specifi cally allowed by the states. In effect, this was the fi rst voicing of the theory of states’ rights. THE PRESIDENCY In 1800 Jefferson ran for president, and the election ended in a tied electoral vote between him and Aaron Burr. The tie was broken by the House of Representatives, which voted for Jefferson. He was the fi rst president to have his inauguration in Washington, D.C., which he had helped design while secretary of state. Jefferson served two terms from 1801 to 1809. It was during Jefferson’s fi rst term that he sent James Monroe to France to purchase the town of New Orleans; Madison worked out a deal to purchase the entire Louisiana Territory for $15 million. The purchase doubled the size of the country. Jefferson then commissioned Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to lead an expedition into the new territory. During his fi rst term he also sent a naval force against the Barbary pirates and against the sultan of Morocco. In the end a new treaty was negotiated with the sultan that granted the United States more favorable terms than the previous agreement. Jefferson’s second term was marked by war between France and England. The United States wanted to remain neutral and not get involved in the war. Because of the limits and restrictions placed on American merchants by both European powers, the United States found itself in a no-win situation. In an attempt to keep the United States out of war, Congress enacted an embargo on shipments to Europe to get France and Britain to negotiate better trade terms with the United States, which did not happen. On March 1, 1809, Jefferson was forced to end the embargo. Shortly afterward, his second term was over, and he was able to turn the offi ce and the problems of Europe over to Madison. After leaving offi ce Jefferson returned to Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his life. The embargo had hurt most of the planters in Virginia, and Jefferson was no exception. Taking on even more debt, he was forced in 1815 to sell his personal library to the government; the collection started the Library of Congress. He also turned over management of his lands to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph. Jefferson wanted to see a university established in western Virginia. In 1814 he got involved, as a trustee, with the Albemarle Academy, which then became Central College and eventually the University of Virginia. The General Assembly approved funding for the university in 1818, and a commission was formed, with Jefferson as a member, to fi nd a site for the school. The fi nal report was made, and a charter was issued in 1819 for the university, which opened its doors in 1825. Jefferson suffered another fi nancial setback and set about selling his land to cover his debt. He died believing that his debts would be covered, not realizing that Monticello would end up passing out of the hands of his heirs. Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. In 1998 evidence came to light suggesting that Jefferson had fathered a number of children with his slave Sally Hemings. While such allegations were not new—as early as 1802 a Richmond newspaper reported that Jefferson lived with a slave named Sally as a concubine—DNA evidence linked Jefferson’s family with that of Hemings. While inconclusive in determining the actual parentage, most experts agree that it is unlikely that any member of Jefferson’s family other than Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children. This highlights Jefferson’s complicated views on race and slavery. While a slaveholder himself, Jefferson spoke out against slavery; original wording in the Declaration of Independence condemned the British government for continuing the slave trade; and, as president, Jefferson abolished the slave trade in 1807. His own ownership of slaves appears to have caused him a great deal of internal confl ict, and shortly before his death he freed his fi ve most trusted slaves. Further reading: Cunningham, Noble E. In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987; Holmes, Jerry, ed., Thomas Jefferson: A Chronology of His Thoughts. Lanham, MD: Rowen & Littlefi eld Publishers, 2002; Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time. New York: Little, Brown, 1981; Peterson, Merrill Jefferson, Thomas 203 D. Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1986. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Jiaqing (Chia-ch’ing) (r. 1796–1820) Qing emperor of China Jiaqing was the name Yongyan (Yung-yen) took as the fi fth emperor of the Qing (Ch’ing) or Manchu dynasty. He was the fi fth son of Emperor Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung) and was secretly designated as his heir in 1773 because of his character and diligence. The choice was not made public until 1795, when Qianlong announced his intention to abdicate. Although Qianlong abdicated on Chinese New Year’s Day in 1796, he continued to hold the reins of power until his death in 1799, relegating the new emperor to ceremonial duties. Qianlong ruled too long for the country’s good, sowing seeds of decay in his declining years and allowing massive corruption to go unchecked. Jiaqing began his actual rule with the arrest and execution of Heshen (Ho-shen), his father’s favorite who had abused power and looted the treasury for a quarter century. The inventory of his confi scated holdings equaled about $1.5 billion. Heshen, however, was the symptom of decay in an empire where corruption had become pervasive. Popular revolts had broken out in several provinces, some organized by religiously inspired secret societies (for example, the White Lotus Rebellion) that the Banner army units, the once-crack army that had conquered the empire, were unable to put down. The population had doubled during the 18th century to about 300 million, putting unbearable pressure on the available land, leading to food shortages and sometimes famines. The Yellow River fl ooded 17 times during Jiaqing’s reign; relief efforts exhausted the treasury and reduced the national income. Jiaqing was not a dynamic leader, but he was frugal and hardworking and labored to reduce corruption and waste. For example, he reduced the expenditure of the imperial household and reduced state support for the huge numbers of his relatives and retainers, resulting in an assassination attempt by a disgruntled former recipient of imperial largess in 1813. His policies were at least partially successful, restoring peace and balancing the budget during his last years. By Jiaqing’s reign, Great Britain had become China’s major trading partner, accounting for between 70 and 80 percent of all foreign trade through Guangzhou (Canton). In 1793 Great Britain had sent an embassy led by Lord Macartney to obtain better trading conditions, without success. In 1816 a second British mission under Lord Amherst arrived in China to announce Britain’s victory over Napoleon I and to reopen negotiations. It again failed, due to a mix-up over Amherst’s credentials and his refusal to kowtow (prostrate) before the emperor as Chinese court protocol required. Twenty-six years later the issue would be settled by war. Jiaqing tried to stem the decline of the Qing dynasty, with limited success. He was well educated, a conscientious ruler, and a patron of learning who sponsored the compilation and publication of many works. See also Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline. Further reading: Fairbank, John K., ed. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 10, Part I, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978; Hummel, Arthur W., ed. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing period (1644– 1912). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1944. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Johnstown fl ood The May 31, 1889, fl ood in western Pennsylvania that devastated the industrial town of Johnstown and nearby communities that were home to 30,000 people left more than 2,200 dead. It was one of 19th- century America’s most famous disasters and arguably its worst. Human errors of poor land management, deforestation, inadequate dam maintenance, and incompetent engineering combined with record-setting rains to launch this natural disaster, as telegraphed warnings went unheeded until it was too late. It began a day after Memorial Day when the South Fork Dam, originally built in the 1850s as part of a canal system and used in the 1880s to create a fi shing and hunting resort for wealthy Pittsburgh industrialists, failed after days of heavy rainfall, sending a tsunamilike wall of water racing toward unprepared communities in the Conemaugh River valley below. Within the space of 10 minutes, the torrent, sweeping trees, train cars, houses, and human and animal remains before it, had all but obliterated Johnstown, its iron industry, and most of its homes. 204 Jiaqing (Chia-ch’ing) This staggering event and its long aftermath of identifi cation, burial, typhoid control, clean-up, and economic recovery attracted national press attention, helping to launch the career of Philadelphia journalist Richard Harding Davis, later a successful globetrotting author. And it was at Johnstown that Clara Barton, nurse-heroine of the Civil War, proved the capability of her eight-year-old American Red Cross to respond effectively to disasters, working tirelessly with her staff in the devastated town for fi ve full months. Governments, communities, and individuals across the United States donated almost $4 million to the recovery effort, while poet Walt Whitman honored the dead in verse. Some critics, including surviving victims of the fl ood, blamed the disaster on the careless selfi shness of members of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club whose dam had given way. Members of this exclusive men’s club included titans of American industry, among them Andrew Carnegie and his lieutenant, Henry Clay Frick, and members of the Mellon family. None of several lawsuits seeking damages for criminal negligence in the deaths, injuries, and monetary losses was successful. However, the Johnstown incident seemed to bolster evidence of indifference by the wealthy and powerful in America’s late Gilded Age. Combined with ongoing labor union agitation, this view compounded many Americans’ sense of growing national inequality and resentment. The city of Johnstown was soon rebuilt. In 1977, after nine hours of hard rain, a 15-foot wall of water roared through the city, washing away a signifi cant section of Johnstown and killing 76. It was a deadly and ironic coda to one of the nation’s most storied disasters. See also transcendentalism. Further reading: McCullough, David. The Johnstown Flood. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone, 1987; Steinberg, Ted. Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Marsha E. Ackermann Joseph II (1741–1790) Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Habsburg lands Emperor Joseph II of the Holy Roman Empire was the son of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria and the Holy Roman Emperor Francis I. Joseph II was born in the middle of the War of the Austrian Succession on March 13, 1741. The War of the Austrian Succession began with the death of Maria Theresa’s father, Emperor Charles VI, in October 1740. King Frederick the Great of Prussia saw the succession of Maria Theresa as a moment of weakness and determined to attack Austria. The Salic law governing the empire had prevented a female succeeding to the throne, and Charles VI had devoted much of his reign to gaining the acceptance of the European powers to accept Maria Theresa as his successor in spite of her sex. Beset by the Prussian invasion, the youthful Joseph II may have been his mother’s secret weapon in the war. Needing Hungary’s help against Frederick, Maria Theresa appeared before the Hungarian magnates at Pressburg, holding the infant boy in her arms, at her coronation there on June 19, 1741. The overwhelming wave of affection for the young mother and son did more to cement Hungary’s ties to Austria than any treaty. Joseph’s education was largely supervised by his mother, who saw herself as a child of the Enlightenment and chose to rule over Austria and Hungary as an “enlightened despot,” a philosopher-queen who desired to better the lives of her subjects. Joseph was therefore raised with the Enlightenment quest for toleration and just government. On the death of Emperor Francis I in 1765, Maria Theresa chose her son to rule jointly with her, which would continue until her death on November After the fl ood: A variety of factors, including deforestation and poor land management, caused the Johnstown fl ood. Joseph II 205 29, 1780. In 1778, Joseph II received his fi rst taste of war with the War of the Bavarian Succession. Two years later in 1780, upon the death of his mother, he began to make policy for the Austrian empire on his own terms. Joseph II became an activist emperor who dedicated his reign to the improvement of his subjects’ lives. With his campaign to improve the life of the peasantry, Joseph pursued a program of land reform that was far ahead of his time. His reformist views had often received resistance from his more conservative mother, and his assumption of the throne became to him a mandate for change. While Czar Alexander II of Russia has gained praise for his abolishment of serfdom in 1861 in the Russian Empire, it is less-often noted that Joseph II of Austria abolished serfdom a full 80 years earlier in 1781. The most revolutionary part of his program was Joseph’s insistence that the peasantry be able to purchase land at fair prices and marry without restrictions. Joseph’s internal reforms also embodied an embryonic social welfare state more than a century before German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck established one in the German Empire in the 19th century. In terms of religion, Joseph II showed himself to be a child of the Enlightenment as well. While not apparently a Freemason himself, Joseph showed himself friendly to the doctrines of Freemasony in the empire. Certainly Joseph II was a patron of the great Austrian composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who entered a Masonic lodge in 1784 and remained a Mason until his premature death in 1791. Joseph also carried out reforms within the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, he issued his Patent of Toleration in 1781. While Joseph II showed himself at his best in reforming the empire internally, his foreign policy of expansionism was carried out with a recklessness that had rarely been the mark of the rulers of the House of Habsburg. He had already been instrumental in bringing about the First Partition of the Kingdom of Poland between Austria, Prussia, and Russia in 1772. He pursued various means to ally with Russia for the partition of Turkey and Venice. Throughout his reign, his policy of carrying out ruthless centralization of the empire had steadily increased opposition among the people of the empire. The population was not nearly as progressive as its ruler, and he rubbed roughly against parochial interests and traditions that had remained virtually untouched since the Middle Ages. Much of Hungary was in unrest because of his determination to use German as the offi cial language of the army and empire. As with many reformers fi lled with zeal, Joseph had displayed a lack of tact. Joseph was relatively immune to retribution so long as he appeared to rule a strong empire. However, his failures at foreign policy fueled his opponents’ perception of him as a weak monarch. Resistance to his reforms, long muted, burst into the open. Throughout the empire, there was upheaval. On January 30, 1790, Joseph II was forced to capitulate on his reforms. A broken man, he died almost exactly a month later, on February 20, 1790. Since he died childless, he was succeeded as Holy Roman Emperor by his brother, who would reign as Emperor Leopold ii. Yet as sickness had begun to take its toll in 1789, the French Revolution erupted in Paris in July. Soon, the ancient institutions of the empire, which he, perhaps sensing the future, had tried to reform, would be struck down by the revolutionary doctrine of “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” The upheaval caused by the French Revolution would strike the Austrian empire with the force of a tidal wave that would make the reforms of Joseph II seem light by comparison. See also enlightened despotism in Europe; Poland, partitions of. Further reading: Anderson, M. S. Europe in the Eighteenth Century 1713–1789: General History of Europe Series. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2000; Carlyle, Thomas. History of Frederick the Great. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969; Duffy, Christopher. Military Experience in the Age of Reason. London: Combined Publishing, 1998; Havens, George. Age of Ideas. New York: Free Press, 1969; Haythornthwaite, Philip. The Austrian Army, 1470– 80. Botley, UK: Osprey, 1994. John F. Murphy, Jr. Juárez, Benito (1806–1872) Mexican president Popularly revered as Mexico’s greatest and most beloved president, sometimes called Mexico’s Abraham Lincoln, Benito Juárez rose from humble origins to become a towering fi gure of the mid-19th century. Like his contemporary Lincoln, Juárez overcame his disadvantaged youth, entered the law, became attracted to politics, and by dint of hard work and perseverance became his nation’s preeminent political leader. Like Lincoln, Juárez was distinguished by his public morality, honesty, and rectitude; his solemn demeanor and simple dress (in Juárez’s case, a plain dark frock coat); deep religious convictions; faith in justice and the law; 206 Juárez, Benito and exceptional strength of character. Like Lincoln, Juárez shepherded his nation through the horrors of civil war only to die in offi ce at the height of his political infl uence. The country’s only Indian president and the personifi cation of the country’s mid-19th century liberal reforms, Juárez was profoundly committed to the rule of law in a nation historically wracked by corruption, political opportunism, and personalist rule. Born to Zapotec parents in the province of Oaxaca on March 21,1806, Benito Pablo Juárez was orphaned at age three and taken in by his uncle, for whom he worked as a shepherd until around age 12. Speaking only rudimentary Spanish, he migrated to Oaxaca City, where he apprenticed to a bookbinder before entering Santa Cruz Seminary, Oaxaca’s only secondary school. There, he studied Latin, philosophy, and moral theology in preparation for entry into the priesthood. Disenchanted with the prospect of clerical life, at age 22 he matriculated at the newly established Institute of Science and Arts, studying political economy, mathematics, and natural sciences before receiving his law degree in 1834. It was during his law studies that Juárez developed his lifelong adherence to Enlightenment principles of reason, secularism, individual rights, and republican government. Delving into the rough and tumble world of local politics, he was elected to Oaxaca’s city council in 1831, earning a reputation as hardworking, honest, fair, and a rigorous legal thinker. In 1842 he was appointed minister of government and, in 1847, governor of Oaxaca, leaving offi ce in unheard-of circumstances: with a surplus in the treasury. In 1843 he married Spanishdescended Margarita Maza, a union that inverted the country’s historical racial-ethnic marriage conventions. After Mexico’s humiliating defeat in the War of ’47 (Mexican-American War), Governor Juárez declared President José Antonio López de Santa Ana persona non grata in Oaxaca, a slight for which Santa Ana never forgave him. Forced into exile by Santa Ana in 1853, Juárez journeyed to New Orleans, where he joined a group of discontented liberals plotting the dictator’s overthrow, a plan that came to fruition in 1855 in the Revolution of Ayutla. From 1855 until his death from a heart attack in 1872, Juárez was the leading player in his nation’s political life, serving as minister of justice, minister of the interior, provisional president headquartered mostly at Veracruz during the War of the Reform, president of the republic, and leader of the national resistance movement against the French occupation. In 1867 he was elected to a third term as president, and, in 1871, to a fourth, dying in offi ce on July 18, 1872, at the age of 66. A lifelong practicing Roman Catholic, Juárez respected the church and its historic role in Mexican society but believed more strongly in Enlightenment principles of individual rights and the secularization of law and government. Mid-19th-century Mexican liberalism ranged on a spectrum from “pure” to “moderate” (puros and moderados). More moderate than pure, Juárez envisioned a harmonious coexistence of church and state and saw no contradiction between respect for the nation’s religious institutions and a secularized state and judicial system. A strong proponent of education, he oversaw the foundation of numerous schools and colleges and devoted much of his public life to educational reform. He also pursued numerous public health initiatives, consistently exhibiting an abiding concern for the material welfare of the poor and downtrodden. His personal life mirrored his public, his personal letters revealing a man deeply committed to his wife and children. His critics maintained that during his last years in offi ce Juárez grew increasingly authoritarian and intolerant of dissent, his reelection to a fourth term revealing a man intoxicated by political power. Others argue that his actions must be interpreted in the context of the In many ways, the life and political career of Mexico’s Benito Juárez mirrors that of U.S. president Abraham Lincoln. Juárez, Benito 207 period, particularly the regional revolts and uprisings that rocked the restored republic, combined with the country’s weak sense of national identity, which required forceful assertion of the supremacy of the central state. His liberal policies violently rejected by many Indian communities, the Zapotec president was Indian in biogenetic terms only. His thinking, indeed his whole being, was Mexican, his political career demonstrating his commitment to transforming the collective rights of Indians in communities into the individual rights of Mexican citizens, a transformation that many Indian communities fi ercely resisted. Juárez left an enduring mark on the nation’s political life and, along with Lázaro Cárdenas, is widely considered the most popular president in Mexican history, especially among the poor. Further reading: Ridley, Jasper. Maximilian and Juárez. London: Constable, 1993; Roeder, Ralph. Juárez and His Mexico: A Biographical History. New York: Viking, 1948; Weeks, Charles A. The Juárez Myth in Mexico. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1987. Michael J. Schroeder

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

Japan, U.S. occupation of The U.S.-led occupation of Japan began at 8:28 a.m. on August 28, 1945, when U.S. army colonel Charles P. Tench of General Douglas MacArthur’s personal staff stepped out of a C-47 Dakota transport onto the battered runway of Atsugi Airfield outside Tokyo, becoming the first foreign conqueror of Japanese soil in its thousand-year history. Tench and his crew were followed two days later by 4,000 men of the 11th Airborne Division. On the same day, the U.S. 6th Marine Division began landing troops at the Yokosuka Navy Base as U.S. and British ships steamed into Tokyo Bay and MacArthur himself put the seal on World War II victory and the beginning of postwar occupation by landing in his aircraft at Atsugi saying, “Melbourne to Tokyo was a long road, but this looks like the payoff.” The occupation was planned concurrently with the invasion of the Home Islands in early 1945 by MacArthur’s headquarters. The occupation plan was to demilitarize Japan so that it would never again threaten its neighbors and to create a democratic and responsible government and a strong, self-sufficient economy. Operation Blacklist was designed to bring about a sudden surrender or collapse of the Japanese government, realized with the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The operation called for a three-phase military occupation of Japan and Korea, with 23 divisions and supporting naval and air forces. The first priority would be to secure bases of operation, control the Japanese government, disarm its military, and liberate 36,000 Allied prisoners of war and internees who were close to death from starvation, torture, and abuse. The Japan that surrendered in 1945 was an exhausted, stunned, and starving nation. Having never known defeat or occupation in their history, the Japanese now saw their institutions destroyed, agriculture and industry wrecked, and 2 million countrymen dead. Acres of major cities were in ruins, thousands homeless, the emperor abject, and the armed forces defeated and dishonored. It was a complete collapse. With Japan’s surrender, MacArthur was appointed supreme commander for the Allied powers in Japan under a U.S. State Department directive entitled “United States Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan.” Instead of Japan’s being divided into separate nationally administered zones, as was done in Germany, the fallen empire would continue as one nation under its existing government and emperor, subject to U.S.-led direction. Above MacArthur was the 11-nation Far Eastern Commission in Washington, established in December 1945, which was to make policy for the occupation and which could discuss and approve but not rescind previous U.S. decisions. Thus, in practice, despite Soviet complaints and demands for a share in the occupation, MacArthur had supreme power over Japan. The first U.S. move after securing operating bases was to recover and repatriate prisoners from more than 140 camps across the Home Islands, airdropping supplies and sending out medical and transport teams to J bring the survivors of Malaya and Bataan home. Nearly all of them were brought out by the end of 1945. Meanwhile, some 250,000 occupying forces, including an Australian-led British Commonwealth occupation force of 36,000 Britons, Australians, New Zealanders, and Indians, fanned out across Japan. While the British force was assigned to southern Honshu and Shikoku Island (including Hiroshima), MacArthur banned Soviet troops from his occupation force. With his headquarters at the Dai Ichi Building in Tokyo, MacArthur did not need to create a political structure to administer Japan. The nation’s government was intact when it surrendered, so his directives were simply passed through his staff to the Japanese- established Central Liaison Offi ce, which acted as intermediary between the occupation staff and the government ministries until the two groups developed working relationships. After freeing the POWs, MacArthur moved to demobilize the battered Japanese war machine, whose 5.5 million soldiers, 1.5 million sailors, and 3.5 million civilian colonial overlords were still defending bypassed islands across the Pacifi c. The Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy were converted into the First and Second Demobilization Bureaus, respectively, and administered the repatriation, disarming, and demobilization of these men. Most of this work was done by the Japanese under close Allied supervision. Japanese warships, even the aircraft carrier Hosho, carried defeated troops home, making their fi nal voyages before going to the scrap yard, where these ships were joined in destruction by tanks, kamikaze planes, midget submarines, and artillery shells of the once-mighty Japanese armed forces. The United States also moved to break down the Japanese police state, decentralizing the police, releasing political prisoners, and abolishing the Home Ministry, which had controlled Japan’s secret police agency, the Kempei Tai. With these changes in place, the United States was able by December 1945 to issue a Bill of Rights directive, which gave the Japanese U.S.-style civil liberties, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. The role of the emperor was also changed. Shortly after the surrender he met MacArthur, which enabled many Japanese to accept the new regime. In January 1946 Emperor Hirohito formally renounced his divinity, ending over a thousand years of Japanese tradition. He also began making public appearances in the style of Britain’s royal family. In April 1946 MacArthur ordered general elections as a referendum on the changes he planned. Three out of four Japanese went to the polls, including 14 million newly enfranchised women, to elect a free diet. The results supported a mildly liberal, prodemocracy government, an endorsement for his plans. Next MacArthur directed the Japanese government to draft a constitution to replace the 1867 Meiji Constitution. While issued by the government in accordance with existing rules to change the constitution, this new document was drafted by MacArthur and his staff. It went into effect in May 1947. The “MacArthur Constitution” created a parliamentary government, the Diet, with popularly elected upper and lower houses, a cabinet that held executive power, and a decentralized regional government of elected assemblies. The constitution also guaranteed basic freedoms. Its most famous section was article nine, in which Japan forever repudiated war as a means of settling disputes and banned the maintenance of military forces. As a result, the modern Japanese armed services are called the Self-Defense Forces. The United States also had to cope with a shattered economy. One-fourth of Japan’s national wealth was lost to the war, prices had risen 20 times, and workers could barely afford to purchase what little food was for sale. Many people had to barter their possessions for fi sh. MacArthur imposed numerous reforms on the Japanese economy. Believing that those who till the soil should own it, he had the Diet break up vast farms held by a few landlords. These farms were expropriated and sold cheaply to the former tenants. MacArthur also worked to break up the commercial empires of the zaibatsu, or “money cliques,” but this proved less successful. The large Japanese businesses were vital to the nation’s economic rebuilding, and names like Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Honda, and Kawasaki, powerful before the war, remained so into the 21st century. Nevertheless, Japan’s economy was rebuilt with speed and power. MacArthur also rebuilt the Japanese education system by replacing nationalist curriculums and textbooks with more liberal materials, raising the school-leaving age, decentralizing the system, and replacing political indoctrination with U.S. and British ideals that supported independent thought. MacArthur also liberated women by ending contract marriage, concubinage, and divorce laws that favored husbands. He also made high schools coeducational and opened 25 women’s universities. The Japanese responded: 14,000 women became social workers, and 2,000 became police offi cers. Women fi lled up the colleges and new assemblies. 178 Japan, U.S. occupation of Changes wrought by the U.S. occupation were massive: Public health programs eliminated epidemics, U.S. police offi cials retrained Japanese policemen, and Japan’s dull offi cial radio programs of government speeches were replaced with a combination of public affairs shows, impartial newscasts, soap operas, and popular music, all of which attracted millions of listeners. At the same time the Anglo-American presence in Japan did much to change Japanese society. The arrival of the occupation forces sent a shiver of fear through the Home Islands, fear that the dreaded gaijin—“hairy barbarians”—would rape, loot, and pillage, as Japanese soldiers had done in lands they conquered. MacArthur gave strict orders regarding his troops’ behavior but did not issue nonfraternization orders. As a result, U.S. soldiers were soon overcoming language barriers to play softball games against Japanese teams, playing tourist at Japan’s many attractions, and giving out chewing gum and candy to ubiquitous Japanese children. By 1947 the occupation had succeeded in its political and economic goals. Despite Soviet intransigence, Japanese society had been transformed. The combination of MacArthur’s steely resolve, U.S. generosity, and Japanese industriousness and adaptability created the modern Japan, able to connect to both its historic roots and the Western world with its democratic values, economic systems, and advanced technology. By March 1947 MacArthur himself said that the occupation was completed and began turning over control of the nation’s affairs and policies to the Japanese. In 1951 the United States and most of its allies signed a peace treaty with Japan, ending an occupation that was generally conceded to have ended fi ve years previously. Further reading: Craig, William. The Fall of Japan. New York: Dial Press, 1967; Dower, John W. Embracing Defeat. New York: Norton, 2000; Kase, Toshikazu. Journey to the Missouri. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1950; Manchester, William. American Caesar. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978. David H. Lippman Japanese constitution (1947) Japan surrendered unconditionally after its resounding defeat in World War II. It was occupied by the U.S. military from 1945 to 1951 under the supervision of General Douglas MacArthur, supreme commander for the Allied Powers. MacArthur undertook fundamental reforms of Japan, one of the most important being the enactment of a new constitution in 1947, which became the underpinning of postwar democratic Japan. MacArthur fi rst ordered Japanese government leaders to submit to him the draft of a new constitution, but he found it unsatisfactory. Then he ordered his general headquarters, under General Courtney Whitney, to produce a model draft that incorporated U.S. ideals, which was readied one week later, on February 13, 1946. Japanese leaders had few opportunities to make changes to it, and the fi nal draft was published on March 6 and ratifi ed by the Japanese legislature. The constitution, which went into effect on May 3, 1947, was fundamentally different from the Meiji Constitution of 1889. It transferred sovereignty from the emperor to the people, making the emperor the “symbol of the state and of the unity of the people.” On MacArthur’s order he had already renounced his claim of personal divinity in a proclamation on January 1, 1946. The constitution also gave women suffrage for the fi rst time and granted them legal equality with men. It essentially copied the British parliamentary system with a bicameral legislature, called the Diet: the lower or house of representatives, elected every four years, held power over the upper house of councillors, also elected (every six years), which replaced the previous House of Peers that had comprised many hereditary nobles. The government was led by a prime minister selected from the Diet by its members. An independent judiciary was created under the supreme court, which was empowered to review the constitutionality of legislation. Article 9 of the constitution renounced war as an instrument of national policy, including the right of belligerence and the maintenance of all forms of war potential. The goal of this article was to prevent Japan’s reversion to its prewar militarism; 31 articles were devoted to human rights, patterned after the U.S. Bill of Rights. Two-thirds majorities in both houses were necessary to initiate changes in the constitution. Although the United States was the catalyst for the fundamental changes embodied in the 1947 constitution, it remained unchanged after Japan regained sovereignty in 1952, indicating that the majority of Japanese were satisfi ed with its provisions. The only signifi cant modifi cation pertained to the creation of a self-defense force in 1952. This was prompted by the United States, in recognition of the need for such a force during the cold war, and warranted because article 9 did not deny Japan the right of self-defense. However, Japan’s self-defense force remained small, at 235,500 troops in 1995, and likewise its defense budget, at around 1 Japanese constitution (1947) 179 percent of the nation’s GDP. Japan relied on protection by the United States, established under the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1952. See also Japan, U.S. occupation of. Further reading: Cohen, T. Remaking Japan: The American Occupation as New Deal. New York: Free Press, 1987; Dower, John W. Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999; Schonberger, H. B. Aftermath of War, 1945–1952. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1989; Yoshida, Shigeru. The Yoshida Memoirs: The Story of Japan in Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press, 1962. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Japanese internment After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, pressure for control of the Japanese and Japanese Americans in their midst built among West Coast whites. Farmers who competed with Japanese Americans, politicians unwilling to take a stand against anti-Japanese sentiment, and ordinary citizens aroused by the attack on Pearl Harbor—all combined against the Japanese, over two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens. Supporting the local bias was the belief on the part of many high-ranking U.S. military offi cers that the Japanese might invade the West Coast. The military was still off balance after the surprise attack of December 7, 1941. U.S. offi cials also feared that the Japanese Americans might spy for the Japanese. They disregarded the U.S. citizenship of the majority of Japanese Americans and the fact that over half were children. They also disregarded the fact that there had been no previous cases of Japanese-American disloyalty to the United States. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which ordered the evacuation of all Japanese from the West Coast. The order authorized the “appropriate Military Commander” to decide who was a military risk and to exclude those so defi ned from the “war zones on the Pacifi c Frontier,” which included all of California, half of Oregon and Washington, and a third of Arizona. In the climate of the times, those so defi ned included all persons of Japanese descent. The United States relocated 120,000 of its people to 10 internment camps, offi cially labeled internment centers, in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas. Although the camps usually took internees based on geographical location, some families were split into different camps. The camps included Amache (Granada), Colorado; Manzanar, California; Minidoka, Idaho; Poston, Arizona; Rohwer, Arkansas; Topaz, Utah; Tule Lake, California; Gila River, Arizona; Heart Mountain, Wyoming; and Jerome, Arkansas. In June 1944 the Japanese prisoners from Jerome were relocated to Rohwer, and Jerome housed German prisoners of war. Gila River was divided into two camps, and about 1,100 inmates from both volunteered for the army. Gila River also had accredited schools and an 8,000-acre farm. The internees fell into two categories. There were about 11,000 resident aliens of Japanese descent who were classifi ed as enemy aliens and interned in Department of Justice camps because they were regarded as threats to national security. Their families could stay with them on a voluntary basis. They were colocated with Italian and German enemy aliens and their families, American or other. The other 114,000 internees were those, alien and citizen, evacuated from the West Coast defense areas due to doubts about their loyalty. Technically, these people were evacuated and relocated temporarily, not interned, but as a practical matter the distinction lacked any signifi cance. Canada evacuated 23,000 Nikkei to camps in British Columbia (BC). Males worked on sugar beet projects or in road camps. Women and children moved to six BC towns removed from the coast. The U.S. camps, administered by the War Relocation Authority (WRA), tended to be overcrowded. Living conditions were poor. The internees had only short notice—48 hours—of their evacuation and could bring only a few possessions. They had to sell their belongings at fi re sale prices to the fortune hunters who preyed on them during their 48 hours. The camps were fenced with barbed wire and guarded by armed soldiers. Camp leadership was open only to U.S.-born Nisei. The Issei, the Japanese-born elders, were subject by U.S. policy to the rule of their offspring. The WRA reported in 1943 that housing consisted of tar paper– covered frame barracks without plumbing or cooking facilities. Coal was scarce, so internees slept under as many blankets as they could fi nd. Food was kept to a cost of 48 cents a day per internee. Meals were taken at mess halls seating 250 to 300 people. Defi cient medical care and a high level of emotional stress proved fatal to some internees. Tule Lake was the camp for troublemakers. It also became home to those who refused to take the loyalty 180 Japanese internment oath in 1943. It became home to 18,000 Japanese, half of whom were U.S. citizens. The loyalty test was given to all internees over age 17. It included two questions: Are you willing to fi ght in the U.S. armed forces (women were asked if they would volunteer for the Women’s Army Corps or Army Nurse Corps), and will you swear unqualifi ed allegiance to the United States, defend it against all attack, and forswear allegiance to the Japanese emperor or any other government or entity? When the United States offered the chance to leave the camps to those who joined the army, 1,200 internees enlisted. From Tule Lake came 13,000 applications for renunciation of U.S. citizenship. When all was done, 5,766 Nisei eventually renounced U.S. citizenship. All 10 people convicted of spying for Japan during the war were Caucasian. After two and a half years, in December 1944 under Public Proclamation Number 21, Roosevelt rescinded Executive Order 9066, effective in January 1945. The camps were all closed by the end of 1945, and internees returned home, relocated within the United States, or left the country. Not all internees took their relocation passively. Some regarded the camps as concentration camps and internment as a violation of the right to habeas corpus. The most important challenges were the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) and Korematsu v. United States (1944). Fred Korematsu asked whether the government had the right to uproot citizens and intern them solely based on race. The fi rst attempt to atone came with the Evacuation Claims Act of 1948, under which over 26,000 claims were paid, usually for small amounts. In the 1960s agitation for atonement renewed, and by 1980 Congress had held hearings that produced the 1983 report “Personal Justice Denied,” which condemned the internment and stated that Korematsu, still the law of the land, was overruled in the court of history. In 1988 Congress enacted legislation awarding $20,000 to each of the 60,000 surviving internees. The government of Canada in 1968 issued a formal apology to Japanese Canadians and paid each survivor $21,000 Canadian dollars. Japanese internment 181 Eight Japanese-American women pose before the camp barbershop at the Tule Lake Relocation Center in Newell, California, in 1942. The United States questioned the loyalty of Japanese-American citizens after Pearl Harbor. Similarly, ethnic Japanese were interned in Canada. Further reading: History on the Net. “World War II Japanese American Internment Camps in the USA.” Available online. URL: http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan _internment_camps.htm. Accessed August 2006; Inada, Lawson Fusao, ed. Only What We Could Carry: The Japanese American Internment Experience. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books, 2000; Irons, Peter. Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. John H. Barnhill Jinnah, Mohammad Ali (1876–1948) Pakistani leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah was an Indian politician who helped found the country of Pakistan, which he governed as its fi rst governor-general from 1947. Born into a prosperous Muslim merchant family in British India, Jinnah determined early in life that he wished to be a lawyer, and he studied in Britain and at the University of Bombay to that end. In Britain he was part of the successful campaign for the election of Dadabhai Naoroji, who became the fi rst Indian to sit in the House of Commons. Jinnah divided his time between politics and the law. He was a moderate in religion; his views were rooted in Indian nationalism and the need for independence. However, as part of an educated elite in India he did not despise British political and social institutions but respected and admired the positive aspects of these, and aimed to retain them in an independent India in the future. He fi rst served in an elected political offi ce as part of the Indian National Congress of 1906. By the early 20th century, political thought in India was becoming divided between Hindus and Muslims. Muslims were starting to fear domination by Hindus, who were the majority. The All-India Muslim League was established in 1906, but Jinnah did not join until 1913, when he had been reassured that it was dedicated to a unifi ed struggle for independence. Jinnah established a reputation as an upholder of Hindu-Muslim unity. He was instrumental in forging the 1916 Lucknow Pact, which led to joint action by the congress and the league. However, the political rise of Mohandas K. Gandhi, who came to dominate Indian nationalism, led Muslim politicians to feel overshadowed. Jinnah withdrew from the congress and emerged as leader of the Muslim League. However, he committed to constitutional change at a time when Muslim-Hindu riots were starting to fl are. Jinnah spent the years between 1930 and 1935 in London but returned in 1935 when the British parliament passed the Government of India Act. He believed that the league should play an important role in a future coalition government. However, elections in 1937 were dominated by the congress, with the league winning only in provinces where Muslims were a majority. After this point relations between Hindus and Muslims broke down almost completely. Fearful of the continued violence and the possible systematic exclusion of Muslim voices from the governance of a future independent India, Jinnah endorsed an idea that had fi rst surfaced in 1930: the concept of a Muslim homeland with its own state on the Indian subcontinent. This state was to be known as Pakistan. Mohammad Ali Jinnah is the father of Pakistan and was its wise helmsman. He served as the fi rst governor of Pakistan until his death in 1948. Further reading: Burke, S. M., and Salim Al-Din Quraish. Quaid-I-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; Cohen, Stephen Philip. The Idea of Pakistan. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. John Walsh

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Janata Party The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), or Indian People’s Party, is a pro-Hindu Indian political party that formed the main opposition to the Congress Party in postindependence India. It defeated the Congress Party in the 1977 general election. The BJP asserts that the Indian government should follow Hindu principles and values and has been highly critical of the secular policies espoused by the Congress Party. It has attracted the sympathies of high-caste Hindus and has an electoral stronghold in the northern part of the country. Its success in securing a larger following among the lower castes has not been complete. The fortunes of the party have been linked to the intensity of anti-Muslim feeling in the country, and it has been repeatedly accused of political and religious extremism. The forerunner of the BJP was the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), or Indian People’s Association, established in 1951 as the political faction of the Hindu paramilitary group Rashtriya Swayamesevak Sangh (RSS, National Volunteers Corps) by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. The BJS started to gain support in the northern regions of India in the late 1960s, defeating the Congress Party in the state election in 1967. Ten years later the leader of the BJS, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, formed, together with other minor political parties, the Janata Party and successfully challenged the premiership of Indira Gandhi. In the general election of 1976, the Janata Party was able to capitalize on the discontent caused by the authoritarian methods of Gandhi and on the corruption charges leveled against her, her family, and government. The Janata Party won the majority of seats in Parliament and obtained the external support of the communists. Morarji Desai, a veteran fighter for the country’s independence, became prime minister, but the Janata government collapsed in 1979, after only two years, because of factionalism. After the Desai government collapsed the Janata Party was dissolved, and the BJP was formed under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. It started to appeal to the Indian masses in the late 1980s, when it campaigned to build a Hindu temple in an area of Uttar Pradesh considered sacred but already occupied by the Muslim Babri Mosjid mosque. The mosque was eventually destroyed in 1992 by organizations that many considered allies of the BJP. The demolition of the mosque caused widespread rioting throughout the nation. Yet the party obtained a surprising electoral victory in 1996, becoming the largest political party in the lower house of Parliament. In 1998 Vajpayee formed a coalition government, in power for only 13 months. Vajpayee contested the 1999 election, leading the BJP to become the first party of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a coalition of parties against the Congress. Because of this electoral success he was once again appointed prime minister, governing for a full term until 2004, when he unexpectedly lost the general election to the Congress, J led by Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, the widow of Indira Gandhi’s son Rajiv. Further reading: Malik, Yogendra, and K. V. B. Singh. Hindu Nationalists in India: The Rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994; www.janataparty.com (cited June 2006); Mishra, Patit Paban. “India, A Profile.” In Encyclopedia of Modern Asia. D. Levinson and K. Christensen, eds. Vol. 3, pp. 22–25. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2002. Luca Prono Al Jazeera Al Jazeera (meaning “Island” or “Peninsula”), the Arab satellite TV news station, was established in Qatar in 1996. Start-up investment was provided by the Qatari emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. In stark contrast to the government-controlled media throughout the Arab world, Al Jazeera quickly earned a reputation and a widespread global audience for its independent programming and content. With a motto of “the opinion and the other opinion,” Al Jazeera covered the activities and political philosophy of Osama bin Laden as early as 1999. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, bin Laden sent the station cassettes with his political messages. Journalists and talk show hosts at Al Jazeera covered hitherto forbidden topics such as the human rights and political failures of Arab regimes. They also interviewed Israelis on a wide variety of issues. Al Jazeera earned the enmity of Arab governments, many of which made no secret of their desire to preempt or stop its programs. Al Jazeera’s talk shows focused on sensitive subjects. Al Jazeera’s independent coverage was initially praised in the West, but after the station carried negative stories about the U.S. war and subsequent occupation in Iraq from 2003 onward, the United States, under the George W. Bush administration, publicly criticized Al Jazeera’s coverage as biased. At the same time, the United States was accused of planting or paying for positive stories to be carried in the Iraqi media. The success of Al Jazeera in attracting a huge audience demonstrated the impact of technology and highlighted the importance of information sources to audiences around the world in the 21st century. See also Gulf War, Second (Iraq War); World Trade Center, September 11, 2001. Further reading: El-Nawawy, Mohammed, and Adel Iskandar. Al Jazeera: How the Free Arab News Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press, 2002; Rushing, Josh. Mission Al Jazeera: Build a Bridge, Seek the Truth, Change the World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Janice J. Terry Jesus movement The Jesus movement flourished in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States and Europe. Young people involved in the hippie, or counterculture, movement were targeted by unorthodox evangelists or found their own way to Christianity. Previous experimentation with drugs, Eastern religion, the occult, and communal lifestyles affected the way these young Christians approached their faith. Just as important was the deep alienation many young people felt toward “anyone over thirty” and the traditional or conventional institutions, including the churches, they controlled. Culturally quite conservative, older church people were often offended by the clothes and hairstyles favored by the young and adamantly resisted making any concessions to their sensibilities or desires regarding worship. Originally based in innovative churches, Jesus movement churches served as bases for vigorous evangelism on university campuses, beaches, and the streets. Many Jesus people joined more traditional churches, usually evangelical Protestant but also Catholic, Orthodox, or Episcopal. By the 1980s–1990s most evangelical churches had accommodated the worship styles and sensibilities pioneered by the Jesus movement. For many the belief in an imminent apocalypse led to an interest in “prophecy,” which often became a conduit for conservative politics during the cold war. Perhaps ironically, the Jesus movement helped lay the foundation for the New Christian Right. Contemporary evangelical Protestantism was deeply affected by the Jesus movement, absorbing its moral intensity. The latter can be seen most vividly in the revolution that has occurred in worship and popular Christian music. Further reading: Di Sabatinio, David. The Jesus Movement: An Annotated Bibliography and General Resouce. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999; Ellwood, Robert S. One Way: 228 Al Jazeera The Jesus Movement and its Meaning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973. John Haas Jiang Zemin (Chiang Tse-min) (1926– ) Chinese leader Jiang Zemin was the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from 1989 until 2002, and the president of the People’s Republic of China from 1993 until 2003. Jiang was born in 1926, at Yangzhou, Jiangsu (Kiangsu) Province. He joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1946. In the same year he studied at Jiaotong (Chaio-t’ung) University in Shanghai, graduating with a degree in electrical engineering. At the end of the Chinese civil war Jiang was appointed commercial counselor at the Chinese embassy in Moscow, a post he held until 1956. He was appointed assistant to the minister, First Ministry of Machine Building, running the Changchun First Automobile Plant. In September 1978, he became vice chairman of the Society of Mechanical Engineering, the position he held before the Cultural Revolution. He then became vice minister on the State Commission on Imports and Exports in 1980, and vice minister of the electronics industries two years later. In 1983 he became minister of electronics industries, a post he held until 1985, when he became mayor of Shanghai. In 1982 Jiang became a member of the Central Committee of the CCP, and in 1987 he joined the Politburo. A supporter of China’s then paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsaio-p’ing), Jiang was also a political ally of the premier Li Peng during the suppression of the pro-democracy student demonstrations in 1989. Subsequently Jiang succeeded Zhao Ziyang (Chao Tzu-jang) as general secretary of the CCP on June 24, and was also elevated to the Politburo Standing Committee. Later that year he succeeded Deng as chairman of the CCP’s central military commission. Four years later, on March 27, 1993, Jiang became president of the National People’s Congress, and hence the head of state of China. When Deng Xiaoping died in 1997, Jiang rose to become paramount leader. He was economically more conservative than Deng, who had been critical of the slow pace of some reforms. However, he started a program of privatization, which loosened state control over 300,000 industrial concerns. The massive economic growth that resulted saw the Chinese economy boom and the emerging business class flourigh, many of whom were encouraged to join the CCP. In December 2001 China gained membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), a move that would have been unimaginable only 10 years earlier. The Chinese economy then started growing at an even faster pace. In foreign affairs, Jiang improved Chinese relations with the United States and many other countries in the West. In 1997 he took part in the first U.S.-China summit conference, and at a follow-up meeting in the next year he openly defended China’s human-rights record. In 2001 Beijing won the contest to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, a move that marked China’s emergence from the self-imposed policy of isolation of previous decades. On November 15, 2002, Jiang resigned as general secretary of the CCP and, on March 15, 2003, from the presidency of the National People’s Congress. He was succeeded by Hu Jintao in a remarkably smooth transition, but remained the chair of the central military commission until September 2004. He remained an influential figure in Chinese politics. See also Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976). Further reading: Kuhn, Robert Lawrence. The Man Who Changed China: The Life and Legacy of Jiang Zemin. New York: Random House, 2005; Lam, Willy Wo-Lap. The Era of Jiang Zemin. Singapore: Prentice Hall, 1999. Justin Corfield John Paul II (1920–2005) pope Karol Józef Wojtyła (Voy-TEE-wah) was born on May 18, 1920, to Emilia Kaczorowska and Karol Wojtyła, a lieutenant in the Polish army. The couple had two other children years earlier: a daughter, who died in infancy, and Edmund, who became a medical doctor. When Karol Józef was born, the family lived in Wadowice, Poland, in a flat owned by a Jewish family, directly across from St. Mary’s church, where Karol was baptized. His father retired from the army in 1927. Karol’s mother died in 1929. Edmund died three years later in Kraków. Karol and his father would live together until the latter’s death in Kraków at the start of the German occupation, while Karol was still a teenager. From 1939 to 1945, Wojtyła eked out an education. Before the Gestapo shut down the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, he had begun studies in Polish John Paul II 22 9 philology. Professors who escaped deportation opened an underground university, which Wojtyła attended. To support himself, he worked in a rock quarry and later in a chemical plant, surrounding himself with books and teaching himself languages. From his father and parish priests in Wadowice, Wojtyła had learned the importance of prayer. In occupied Kraków, prayer was his lifeline to hope. There young Wojtyła met Jan Tyranowski, a tailor, mystic, and spiritual director. Tyranowski created what he called a “living Rosary”: a group of 15 young men who received from him spiritual instruction and who were commissioned to pass it on to other young people. From Tyranowski, Wojtyła learned contemplative prayer, especially the spirituality of St. John of the Cross. After his father’s death in February 1941, Wojtyła joined Archbishop Sapieha’s underground seminary and was ordained by him in November 1946. Sent to Rome, Wojtyła earned the first of two doctoral degrees in theology. Upon his return, Fr. Wojtyła had to devise ways to disguise his ministry. Throughout the 1950s he published plays, poems, and articles under an alias; chaperoned college students on hiking and kayaking trips to teach the faith without observation; and counseled engaged couples on marital sexuality. He taught at two universities, as a professor of philosophy at the Jagiellonian, and of social ethics at the Catholic University of Lublin. In 1958 Pius XII named Wojtyła auxiliary bishop of Kraków, and in 1963 Paul VI appointed him that city’s archbishop. The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) brought the young archbishop to Rome, into the company of bishops from everywhere. Wojtyła spoke frequently in assemblies large and small, helped draft documents such as the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World), and published poetry and articles for the people back home describing what the council meant for the church. Karol Wojtyła was made a cardinal in 1967 and remained archbishop of Kraków for 15 years. He led a synod for the archdiocese, which met 119 times over seven years. He strengthened the seminary and the Jagiellonian theology faculty, inaugurated marriage 23 0 John Paul II The spiritual leader of the world’s Catholics, Pope John Paul II traveled the continents, including visits to the United States (above). The pope was a political leader as well, and during his pontificate, 83 countries established diplomatic relations with the Holy See. preparation programs and family ministries, encouraged youth movements, organized parish-based charitable committees, and made lengthy visitations to his parishes. He continued teaching and publishing without letup. When Paul VI died in August 1978, Cardinal Wojtyła participated in the conclave that elected Albino Luciani, whose double name John Paul signaled his wish to continue the work of popes John XXIII and Paul VI. Wojtyła returned to Kraków. But the new pope died a month later. Wojtyła departed again for Rome, fearing that he might remain there. He did eventually return, but not as archbishop. On October 16, 1978, Cardinal Wojtyła was elected the 264th successor of Peter and the first Polish pope ever. Like Luciani, he took the double name of John Paul. Immediately, the whirlwind of activities that characterized his papacy began: visits to parishes in Rome, travels outside the Vatican, meetings, writings, and long hours prostrate in prayer. Within three months, his marathon series of international journeys began with a pastoral visit to Mexico. In June 1979, much to the dismay of the communist government, he made the first of several visits to Poland. The Soviet authorities realized that this pope was dangerous. On May 13, 1981, Mehmet Ali Ag˘ca, hired by the Bulgarian secret police at the behest of the Soviet KGB, shot John Paul as he rode through St. Peter’s Square. The wound was serious but not fatal. Though recovery was slow and fraught with complications, the pope resumed his travels as soon as he could, even visiting Poland again in 1983. The most widely traveled pope in history, John Paul II visited a total of 129 countries, plus 145 trips within Italy, and visits to 317 of the 328 parishes in the diocese of Rome. John Paul intended his papacy to address two major goals. First, he wished to implement Vatican II, a council full of hope for the church’s future. He promulgated in 1983 the revised Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church, and in 1990 the revised Code for the Eastern Churches, both built on council teachings. To restore clarity to church teaching, he commissioned the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He delivered hundreds of catechetical addresses. In 14 papal encyclicals, 15 apostolic exhortations, 45 “apostolic letters,” and numerous other writings, he taught on morality, life issues, the dignity of work, the dignity of women, the role of the family, the nature of the Trinity, and the meaning of the Creed. To provide models of the holiness called for in Vatican II, John Paul canonized 1,342 saints, more than the combined total of persons canonized since the 16th century. A second goal was to prepare the church for the advent of the third millennium, an era John Paul saw as a springtime of hope. To that end, he announced a “new evangelization” of the world. His biennial World Youth Days attracted millions of young people from the world over. His first encyclical, published in 1979, had mentioned this jubilee as the beginning of a “new Advent” of the Son of God in human history. A pope is a political, as well as a religious, leader. He is widely credited with a major role in the 1989 collapse of European communism. Perseverance, back-door negotiations, and providential coincidences resulted in the creation of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the state of Israel in 1993. During John Paul’s pontificate, 83 countries established diplomatic relations with the Holy See. Through dogged effort, his ambassadors at the United Nations were able to forestall activist efforts to reshape marriage and promote abortion on demand at the 1994 Cairo and 1995 Beijing women’s conferences. But some problems proved insurmountable. The number of priests and seminarians continued to decline during John Paul’s papacy. Radical feminists persisted in challenging the church’s refusal to ordain women to the priesthood. Ecumenical dialogue with most Orthodox churches stalled. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining bishops without authorization, died unreconciled despite efforts to reinstate him. The pope was criticized for appointing weak bishops and for failing to reform religious orders. John Paul’s decline in health appeared to begin after the 1981 assassination attempt. Intestinal disorders and a series of falls in the early 1990s led to repeated hospitalizations. In 1994 he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, which gradually sapped his physical strength. On April 2, 2005, he died of complications from Parkinson’s. Karol Wojtyła’s reign as John Paul II lasted 26 years and 5 months, the thirdlongest papal tenure up to that time. Further reading: O’Brien, Darcy. The Hidden Pope: The Personal Journey of John Paul II and Jerzy Kluger. New York: Daybreak Books, 1998; Ratzinger, Cardinal Josef, and Giancarlo Giuliani. The Legacy of John Paul II. Fort Collins, CO: Ignatius Press; Weigel, George. Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II. New York: Harper Collins Cliff Street Books, 1999. R. Dennis Walters John Paul II 23 1 Johnson, Lyndon B. (1908–1973) U.S. president Lyndon Baines Johnson, nicknamed LBJ, was the 36th president of the United States. Prior to that, he had been vice president during the presidency of John F. Kennedy. He is best remembered for presiding over the United States during the Vietnam War, and also for his efforts in promoting Civil Rights in the southern parts of the United States. Lyndon Johnson was born on August 27, 1908, at Gillespie County, Texas, the eldest of five children. His father was Sam Ealy Johnson Jr., a businessman who was also a member of the Texas House of Representatives, and his mother was Rebekah (née Baines), who was the daughter of Joseph Baines, another state legislator. Johnson left high school in 1924, and, after three years working in odd jobs, he studied at the Southwest Texas State Teachers College at San Marcos, Texas, and then taught at Cotulla, Texas. In 1930 Johnson worked for Democrat Richard Kleberg, who was standing for Congress, accompanying him to Washington, D.C., when he was elected. Four years later he married Claudia Alta Taylor, who became known as “Lady Bird.” It was in Washington that Johnson came to meet Sam Rayburn, the Texan chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Johnson became director of the National Youth Administration for two years and then stood as a Democratic Party candidate for the 10th congressional district, winning his seat. Johnson won a seat in the Senate in 1948 and spent 12 years there, becoming Democratic whip in 1951, minority leader in 1953, and majority leader in 1955. Johnson survived a serious heart attack in 1955, and became well known for his negotiating talent, using bluster, discipline, persuasiveness, and ruthlessness. In 1960 Johnson lost the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination to Kennedy by 809 to 409 on the first ballot. He then accepted the vice-presidential slot. As vice president, Johnson found himself unable to do much of the negotiating that he had enjoyed. On November 22, 1963, when Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson took the oath of office as president on Air Force One, the presidential plane, just before it took off from Love Field, Dallas, to take Kennedy’s body back to Washington. Johnson immediately set up a commission to investigate the assassination, appointing Earl Warren, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to chair it. Johnson had a hard task maintaining the dignity and authority of the office of the president and ensuring some form of continuity. He had long been a supporter of civil rights, and in February 1964 managed to get the Civil Rights Act introduced in Congress. It was passed by the Senate in June 1964. After it was signed into law on July 2, 1964, ending segregation and any discrimination on grounds of race or sex, the law was challenged in the Supreme Court, which found it was valid. Hoping for the success of this legislation, Johnson made his famous speech on May 22, 1964, at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in which he announced his plans for the “Great Society.” In 1964 the Republican Party chose Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater to run against Johnson, giving the incumbent an easier election campaign than he had expected. Johnson won 486 of the electoral college seats to 52 for Goldwater, with Johnson taking 61 percent of the vote, the largest percentage ever taken in a presidential election. The emerging problem for Johnson was, however, the growing war in Vietnam. In August 1964 news stories revealed that North Vietnamese gunboats had attacked a U.S. destroyer and then launched another attack several days later. It subsequently emerged that the second attack had not taken place, and there are many doubts over the nature of the first attack. Nevertheless Johnson did believe that the U.S. destroyers had been attacked and launched a retaliatory air strike against North Vietnam. He also managed to get Congress to approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving 232 Johnson, Lyndon B. Lyndon B. Johnson takes the oath of office on Air Force One following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. him the authority to do whatever was needed to deal with the communists in Vietnam. Public support for the war effort fell as the United States suffered huge casualties. By 1967 there were large demonstrations, and by 1968 Johnson had become increasingly unpopular. On January 23, 1968, the USS Pueblo, an American intelligence-gathering ship, was seized by North Korea after ending up in their waters. The crew of 80 were all captured and held for 11 months until the U.S. government apologized and obtained their release, later retracting their apology. Johnson had ordered the USS Enterprise into the region, but acted with caution. In the week after the seizing of the Pueblo, the Vietcong launched the Tet Offensive, with television coverage of Vietcong capturing the U.S. embassy. General William Westmoreland had promised that the war was nearly over three months earlier. The United States and South Vietnam quickly managed to defeat the Vietcong attacks, but most people refused to believe the administration’s protestations that victory was close. Johnson decided not to contest the election and on March 31, 1968, in a national address on television, stated that he would neither seek nor accept the Democrat Party’s renomination. The 1968 election campaign saw the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the African-American civil rights leader, on April 4, leading to rioting in Washington, D.C., and many other cities. The assassination of presidential candidate and former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles on June 6 resulted in widespread political unease. Vice President Hubert Humphrey was guaranteed the Democrat Party nomination when the party convention was held in Chicago, but antiwar protestors converged on the city intent on making their opposition to the war heard. Johnson tried to help Humphrey, who called for an unconditional U.S. halt to the bombing of North Vietnam, and in October, a week before the election, Johnson announced the end of all U.S. bombing to open the way for peace talks. It was too late for many people, and they voted for Richard Nixon. In January 1969 Johnson retired to his L.B.J. Ranch near Johnson City, Texas. Johnson suffered a heart attack, and died on January 22, 1973, in San Antonio, Texas, only five days before the Paris Peace Accords stopped the fighting in Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson was buried at his ranch. Further reading: Barrett, David M. Uncertain Warriors: Lyndon Johnson and His Vietnam Advisers. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993; Brands, H. W. The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Goldsmith, John A. Colleagues: Richard B. Russell and His Apprentice, Lyndon B. Johnson. Washington D.C.: Seven Locks Press, 1993; Henggeler, Paul R. In His Steps: Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedy Mystique. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1991; Herring, George C. L.B.J. and Vietnam: A Different Kind of War. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994. Justin Corfield Jordan, Hashemite monarchy in For most of Jordan’s modern history, Jordanians knew only one king as architect of the kingdom’s domestic development and of its foreign policy. King Hussein consolidated the Hashemite regime in Jordan and defended it against internal and external challenges, neither of which were in short supply. From the foundation of the Hashemite state onward, Jordan maintained close strategic ties to Britain and later the United States. After World War II, and with the onset of the cold war, Jordan also established stronger links with the United States. Western powers came to view Jordan as a conservative bulwark against communism and radical forms of Pan-Arabism, and as a moderating element in the Arab-Israeli conflict. From the beginning, then, Jordan had close ties to powerful Western states and depended heavily on foreign aid from these countries to keep the kingdom afloat. Jordan’s centrality in Middle East politics and geography also carried with it a strategic vulnerability. In the 1950s, when the kingdom was still young and viewed by many Pan-Arab nationalists as an artificial “paper tiger,” some Jordanian officials feared that another regional conflict might eliminate the Hashemite state entirely. In 1957 Hussein headed off an attempted coup d’état by pro-Nasserist military officers and used the opportunity to solidify Hashemite royal control. By the late 1960s the regime was forced to focus outward once again as regional tensions escalated especially between Israel and Gamal Abdel Nasser’s regime in Egypt. In the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Israeli forces launched what they viewed as a preemptive strike on Arab forces in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, inflicting a devastating defeat on all three countries. The complete failure of the Arab war effort led to Israeli occupation of the Sinai from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan. In less than six days, Jordan lost some of its most prized territory, including the agriculturally rich West Jordan, Hashemite monarchy in 233 Bank and the more religiously significant East Jerusalem. Tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees poured across the border into Jordan in June 1967, changing the demographics and ultimately the domestic stability of the kingdom. That uneasy situation collapsed in September 1970, when guerrilla forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization fought the royalist forces of the Hashemite government. This Jordanian civil war resulted in a bloody Hashemite victory and the expulsion of PLO guerrilla forces from Jordan. More than half the population of Jordan today is of Palestinian origin. Although this West Bank/East Bank ethnic divide is sometimes overstated, it remains a significant feature of Jordan’s society, its political economy, and of the Jordanian state itself. Much of the Jordanian government, public sector, and military is dominated by East Bank Jordanians, while much of the private sector is dominated by Palestinians. Following the disastrous 1967 war, the Hashemite regime maintained its claim to the West Bank and East Jerusalem for two decades. But in 1988 in the midst of the first Intifada, it renounced these claims and turned instead toward consolidating its rule east of the Jordan River. Indeed, Jordan remained under martial law from the 1967 war until it was lifted in 1992 as part of the overall political liberalization process. The regime’s concerns for stability were underscored dramatically in 1989 by domestic unrest triggered by an economic austerity program initiated under the aegis of the International Monetary Fund. With the intifada raging west of the Jordan River, and domestic unrest erupting in Jordan itself, King Hussein initiated measures to address public demands and to reestablish the stability of the regime. That opening helped reestablish the regime’s base of domestic support, thereby shoring up its stability and allowing it to sign a controversial peace treaty with the State of Israel in 1994. In 1999 King Hussein died after a long battle with cancer. In a surprise move, the king had abruptly changed the line of succession merely weeks before his death, dismissing his brother Hasan as crown prince and appointing instead his eldest son, Abdullah. With Hussein’s death, King Abdullah II ascended the Hashemite throne. His reign was marked by strong efforts to continue the economic liberalization process, emphasizing a neoliberal model of development and shoring up Jordan’s relations with key Western powers and international economic institutions. But this emphasis on economic development and stable foreign relations also forced political liberalization to a lower priority level. Under Abdullah, the kingdom survived still more regional unrest and even began battling terrorism within Jordan itself. These internal and external security concerns did not dissuade the monarchy from its emphasis on economic development, but they often provided the pretext for lack of progress in reviving Jordan’s seemingly stalled program of political liberalization. Further reading: al-Madfai, Madiha Rashid. Jordan, the United States and the Middle East Peace Process, 1974–1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Ryan, Curtis R. Jordan in Transition: From Hussein to Abdullah. Boulder CO: Lynne Reinner, 2002; Satloff, Robert B. From Abdullah to Hussein: Jordan in Transition. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Curtis R. Ryan

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki