Fandom

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History L

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

Laozi (Lao Tzu) and Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu) founders of Daoism Confucianism and Daoism (Taoism) are the two most infl uential philosophies in China. Both had their roots during the later Zhou (Chou) dynasty in the era of the Hundred Schools of Philosophy. The political and social environment that inspired the Hundred Schools was the breakdown of the Zhou monarchy and the rise of powerful states that warred with one another for the right to rule China, and the economic progress and social changes that had disrupted the traditional social order. All philosophers agreed that China had lost its way, or dao. Whereas the Confucians were traditionalists who interpreted ancient texts to fi t their view of political philosophy and morality, the Daoists were rebels against the bonds of a decadent society; they preached renunciation of the world and a return to primitive simplicity, which was to them the golden age. Whereas a fi xed date and fairly accurate biography have been established for Confucius, nothing is certain about later Daoist claims concerning their founder Laozi. He purportedly lived in the sixth century b.c.e., hailed from the southern state called Zhu (Ch’u), and worked as an archivist in the Zhou court. He later decided to leave China and was detained at the western border; the guards would not let him go until he had written down his philosophy. The resulting 5,000-word-long work is called the Laozi (Lao Tzu) or Daodejing (Tao-te Ching), which means the “Canon of the Way and virtue” and from which the name Daoism is derived. After that he traveled west, reached India, and converted Gautama Buddha, founder of Buddhism, to his philosophy. However, Laozi means “old master” in Chinese, indicating that the founder of Daoism did not even have a surname, though his followers in later centuries gave him one, Li. Whether he existed or not, there were hermits and recluses in China during the era of the Hundred Schools, and Daoists were obviously among them. This school is also called “Teaching of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi” (the Yellow Emperor is the mythical founder of the Chinese nation) or the “Teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi.” Zhuangzi means master Zhuang. His given name was Zhou, and he lived between around 369–286 b.c.e. He was a historical fi gure who was a minor offi cial for a while but lived as a recluse most of the time. Zhuangzi was the second most important fi gure of Daoism and was contemporary of Mencius, the Second Sage of Confucianism. He and his followers left a prose work named the Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu). The Laozi, or Daodejing, contains a philosophy of life and government. It has been read and puzzled over by its Chinese readers and in translations by readers the world over because it can be approached at different levels and yield different interpretations. It is part prose and part poetry and both enigmatic and profound. It opens thus: The Dao [Way] that can be told of Is not the eternal Dao; L 241 The name that can be named Is not the eternal name, Nameless, it is the origin of Heaven and Earth Namable, it is the mother of all things. Refrain from exalting the worthy, So that the people will not scheme and contend; Refrain from prizing rare possessions, So that the people will not steal; Refrain from displaying objects of desire, So that the people’s hearts will not be disturbed Therefore a sage rules his people thus: He empties their minds, And fi lls their bellies; He weakens their ambitions And strengthens their bones. In other words, the ideal ruler and government do not interfere in the lives of the people and lead them to the golden age of primitive simplicity by nonaction. It is civilization that has corrupted humanity from its early state of innocence. The sage practices nonaction, gives up worldly ambitions, and lives a simple life in accord with nature. The Laozi also criticized the do-gooders (such as Confucians) thus: “He [the ruler] strives always to keep the people innocent of knowledge and desires, and to keep the knowing ones from meddling. By doing nothing that interferes with anything, nothing is left unregulated.” The Zhuangzi is a book that is full of humor and whimsy, which pleads for a kind of spiritual freedom for humans so that he or she can rise above individualism and partial understanding. Only then can a person achieve full happiness that is beyond change and freedom from both life and death. One passage from his book illustrates his point. When Zhuangzi’s wife died, his friend Huizi (Hui Tzu) came to offer condolences. Finding him singing Huizi was offended and reprimanded him for disrespectful behavior. Zhuangzi replied: “You misjudge me. When she died I was in despair, as any man might be. But soon pondering on what had happened, I told myself that in death no strange new fate befalls us. . . . For not nature only but man’s being has its seasons, its sequence of spring and autumn, summer and winter. If some one is tired and has gone to lie down, we do not pursue him with shouting and bawling. She whom I have lost has lain down to sleep for a while . . . in the Great Inner Room. To break in upon her rest with the noise of lamentation would but show that I knew nothing of nature’s Sovereign Law. That is why I ceased to mourn.” See also Buddhism in China; Confucian Classics. Further reading: De Bary, Wm. T., et al. Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960; Waley, Arthur. Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur late barbarians Late barbarians invaded present-day Europe, contributing politically, culturally, and militarily to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire by establishing their own kingdoms. The Huns, Alans, and Goths from the Asiatic steppes were the fi rst wave of land invaders to make inroads into the waning Roman Empire in the fourth and fi fth centuries c.e., while the Vandals, Sueve, and Burgundians pressured the Roman Empire from the west. The Franks, Alamans, and Bavarians invaded during the fi fth and sixth centuries. The Lombards and Avars were the last of the land invaders in the sixth and seventh centuries. The maritime invaders included Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. THE HUNS The skillful mounted archers known as the Huns, who derived from present-day Mongolia, were an amalgam of multiracial, pastoralist nomads. Their invasion into southeastern Europe in 371 c.e. set off a domino effect of invasions from various tribes and geographical directions that permanently changed the economic and political landscape of Europe. The Huns vanquished the Alans (Alani) who had settled in Pannonia, between the Don and Volga Rivers, and the Ostrogoths, who occupied the area between the Dniester and the Don Rivers. They also defeated the Goths in present-day Romania in 376. The Huns allied briefl y with Roman general Flavius Aëtius (c. 406–454) who had been a Hunnish hostage under King Rua (Rugila) in present-day Hungary. The Roman-Hun alliance ended when Rua died in 434 and his nephews Bleda and Attila, sons of his brother Mundzuk, succeeded to the throne. Attila had Bleda murdered in 441 while the Huns reached the Danube River on the northern boundary of the Roman Empire and invaded Thrace. A peace treaty with Rome granted them an enormous tribute, but when a payment was missed Attila waged war on the Romans on the Danubian border in 441. The Huns then moved into Italy and Greece. Aëtius and his allies defeated Attila on June 20, 451 at Chalonsen- Champagne at the Battle of Catalaunian Fields. Attila died in 453, and his sons divided his empire and began to fi ght their own people. In 455 the Huns were fi nally 242 late barbarians routed at the Battle of Pannonia by an alliance of tribes including the Ostrogoths. The Huns were prevented from moving into the Eastern Roman Empire; consequently, they vanished as a tribe. THE GOTHS The Goths were originally a group of Teutonic tribes from Scandinavia who had settled between the Vistula and Oder Rivers in present-day Poland. The Roman Empire and the Goths met under the rule of Gordian III (238–244 c.e.). The Goths invaded Thrace in 238 c.e. The Romans concluded an alliance (foedus) with them in 332 that remained in effect until 350 when Gothic king Ermeric extended his territory from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Black Sea. Around 369 divisive internal issues caused a permanent split between the Goths, creating the Teuringi, meaning “forest people,” who eventually became known as the Visigoths (western Goths), and the Greutingi, meaning “shore people,” and known as the Ostrogoths (eastern Goths). Little animosity persisted among the split Gothic tribes; groups would pass from one tribe to the other. THE VISIGOTHS The Visigoths fi rst gained power under Emperor Theodosius I (346–395), who used them to help defend the frontier in Moesia, present-day Bulgaria. Under elected king Alaric (c. 370–410) they left Moeisa, became Arian, and plundered cities in the present-day Balkans and Italy until an pact was made with the eastern emperor in 397. Alaric’s forces grew in strength until ultimately Alaric besieged Rome in 408 and 409 and received a huge ransom. Alaric proclaimed the usurper Priscus Attalus as his puppet Western Roman emperor. In 410 Alaric occupied Rome, an act that contributed to the fi nal collapse of the Roman Empire. THE BURGUNDIANS The Burgundians, who had settled in present-day Poland, moved westward around 260 c.e. to the presentday Koblenz area. They founded their own nation, were crushed by the Huns, later established a foedus (alliance) with Rome, and rooted themselves in present-day Geneva. The Franks eventually vanquished the Burgundians, who converted to Catholicism by 533 and submitted to the Merovingian dynasty in 534, under whom they thrived. THE FRANKS The Franks were originally an alliance of numerous German tribes that included the Allemani, Franks, and Saxons. The Franks moved into present-day Belgium by 357 c.e., converted to Christianity in 360, and were soundly defeated by the Romans at the Battle of Argentoratum. In 486 the Franks defeated the Romans in present-day France. Around 496 the Allemani component of the Franks were defeated, and they became members of the Ostrogoth tribe then ruled by Theodoric. THE VANDALS The Vandals fi rst raided the Roman Empire around 275 c.e. As they fl ed from the Huns they settled in Gaul and then Spain from 409 to 411. They moved to North Africa ultimately conquering Algeria and Morocco. The Vandals destroyed Hippo and fi nally settled in Carthage in 439, raided Sicily and Italy, then sacked Rome in 455. The Western Roman Empire, suffering from population decline, decaying cities, and a poor economy, fi nally collapsed in 476. Their vicious methods made their name synonymous with wanton destruction. Byzantine emperor Justinian I conquered the Vandals in 533. THE SUEVI The Suevi were a Germanic tribe that resided in presentday Czech Republic. They were pressured by the Huns to relocate, and in 407 c.e. they crossed the Rhine, eventually settling in Galicia, present-day Spain. They were vanquished by the Visigoths in 456 and disappeared from the written record. THE LOMBARDS The Lombards were from present-day northwest Germany. They migrated south and by the sixth century c.e. moved into present-day northern Italy. The Franks besieged the Lombards in 773. Emperor Charlemagne (742–814) intervened and captured Lombard king Desiderius in 767, effectively ending Lombard rule in Italy. THE AVARS The Avars were mounted nomads from Central Asia who settled on the present-day Hungarian plain. An 80,000-strong expedition of Avars, Huns, Gepids, and Bulgars laid siege to Constantinople in 626 c.e., but the attempt was unsuccessful. The Avars successfully pushed the Croats and the Serbs southward and fought the Merovingians in present-day France. However, Charlemagne destroyed their capital in 796. Shortly thereafter the Avars disappeared as a tribe because they incorporated themselves into the Carolingian dynasty. late barbarians 243 THE ANGLES AND SAXONS The Angles and Saxons derived from the present-day Netherlands, western Germany, and southern Denmark. Their maritime movements resulted in their settling in present-day England in the fi fth century c.e. after the Romans withdrew their legions from Britain. They conquered Celtic Britain and made the people subjects. The Angles and Saxons founded numerous kingdoms of which Northumbria, Wessex, and Mercia were the most prominent. The Anglo-Saxons established a strong culture but were vanquished by the Norman invasion of William the Conqueror in 1066. The Jutes, from present-day Jutland in Denmark, were one of three Teutonic tribes to invade present-day England in the fi fth century c.e. They settled on the Isle of Wight and in Kent. The major effect derived from the late barbarians was the push toward the ultimate destruction of the Roman Empire. Their subsequent empires and kingdoms became the forerunners to the modern nation-states. See also Rome: decline and fall. Further reading: Bury, John B. The Late Roman Empire. London: Norton, 2000; Gordon, Colin D. The Age of Attila: Fifth Century Byzantium and the Barbarians. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993; Musset, Lucien. The Germanic Invasions: The Making of Europe, 400–600A.D. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993; Thompson, E. A. The Huns. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948; Villari, Pasquale. Barbarian Invasions of Italy. New York, Scribner, 1902; Williams, Stephen, and Gerard Friell. Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Annette Richardson Latin Church The Latin Church must be defi ned in relation to the Greek Church. The fact that the former came to mean Roman Catholic (as opposed to Greek Orthodox for the latter) was a function of the politics of the later part of the fi rst millennium c.e. At fi rst the Latin Church was simply an extension of the missionary efforts of Jews and Gentiles who believed that Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth was the messiah, the one promised in the Jewish scriptures who would fulfi ll the covenant of Israel. As the missionaries moved to the heart of the Mediterranean world, Rome, they conveyed their message using the Greek language and thought. From the beginning the Christian communities in the Diaspora Jewish world wrestled with its message using logic and philosophy to explain its message, not just the appeal and initiation experiences typical of a mystery cult. In addition, early Christianity brought to Rome and points further west the Greek sense of visual art and selfdiscipline that later developed into fondness for icons and monastic life, more typical of the Greek Church. At fi rst, the term catholic was used to describe the common culture of the Christian Church, whether in the East or West. Ignatius of Antioch used the term c. 110 c.e. (kata meaning “according to,” and holos meaning “the whole”) as a prepositional phrase describing the local church resisting division, but within another 100 years, Clement of Alexandria used the term to speak of the “universal” church that did not commune with the heretical groups. By the time of the Council of Constantinople (381 c.e.), the term was used in the creed as one of the four main characteristics of the true church: it was “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” The Latin Church increasingly used catholic to defi ne its traditions and doctrines, while the Greek Church embraced another common term, orthodox (“right opinion”), to describe itself. The Council of Chalcedon (451) named Rome and Constantinople as the leading centers of the Christian Church, and in the following centuries these two cities represented the diverging Latin and Greek Churches. When various ravaging tribes overran Rome in the fi fth century, Constantinople became increasingly the center of classical civilization, a fact that caused many Latin Christians to complain bitterly when Greeks did not come to their aid. By the time of Justinian I Latin had faded as an offi cial language of the Eastern empire, thus increasing the cultural distance between the two churches. The pope and political patrons such as the Franks dominated the Latin Church, while the Greek Church gave prominence to the “ecumenical patriarch” (who was given less authority than the pope) and his more dominant political patron, the Byzantine emperor. Centralization of authority became far more pronounced in the Latin Church, and with this came standardization of doctrinal development. See also Christianity, early; Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of. Further reading: Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150–750. History of European Civilization Library. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971; Osborn, Eric. Clement of Alexandria. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Mark F. Whitters 244 Latin Church Legalism Legalism in Chinese is called fajia (fa-chia), meaning “school of law.” It is not strictly a philosophy but a set of amoral and cynical rules aimed at total control and regimentation of society in the interest of a powerful state that is successful in war. It developed late in the Warring States era (403–222 b.c.e.), during the Qin (Ch’in) dynasty, and is credited as the reason for its successful drive to unify China. The fi rst Legalist leader was Gungsun Yang (Kungsun Yang), better known as Shang Yang or Lord Shang (d. 330 b.c.e.). He wrote the Book of Lord Shang, which emphasized government by law, giving the school its name. Lord Shang became chief minister of the state of Qin. He opposed the feudal order as anachronistic and replaced it with a centralized government in which military and civil offi cers were promoted by merit. Agriculture and war were promoted and glorifi ed because these activities made a state rich and strong, whereas music, literature, and history were condemned as useless and poisons to the mind. Man-made laws, not divine or moral laws, were all encompassing, severely punishing people for disobedience and richly rewarding those who served the state well; no one was exempt. When the system was completely in place, the state was supposed to run fl awlessly and the ruler was supposed to be able to enjoy life in the palace untroubled. Two other Legalist leaders were Han Fei (d. 233 b.c.e.) and Li Si (Li Ssu, d. 208 b.c.e.). Both studied under the heterodox Confucian philosopher Xunzi (Hsun Tzu) and went on to serve the Qin state. Han Fei wrote a book named after himself, and like Lord Shang’s book, it was a guide for operating a Legalist-style government that emphasized authority, administrative techniques, and the law. Han Fei fell from power at the hands of his schoolmate and rival Li Si and was forced to take poison in prison. Li became chief minister of Qin and guided its fi nal push to supreme power under the fi rst emperor. He too died in prison at the hands of his political enemy; two years later the Qin empire fell, and the discredited and hated Legalist school would be discarded for all time. Legalism emphasized the use of ruthless power to create an all-powerful state run on impartial and strict laws that could self-perpetuate endlessly. Rewards and punishments were manipulated so that people would serve the interests of the state. Everything was regulated, including thought, hence chief minister Li Si advocated and carried out the burning of books and the killing of hundreds of Confucian scholars after the Qin unifi cation. Lord Shang, Han Fei, and Li Si developed and implemented Legalist ideas and techniques, which enabled Qin to defeat its rivals, unify China, and briefl y impose its totalitarian rule. See also Confucian Classics; Confucius; Hundred Schools of Philosophy. Further reading: Bodde, Derk. China’s First Unifi er, a Study of the Ch’in Dynasty as Seen in the Life of Li Ssu (280?– 208 B.C.). Reprint, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1967; Dubs, Homer H. The Works of Hsuntze. London: Arthur Probsthain, 1928; Duyvendak, Jan Julius. The Book of Lord Shang, a Classic of the Chinese School of Law. London: Arthur Probsthain, 1963; Li, Yu-ning, ed. Shang Yang’s Reforms and State Control in China. White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1977. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur legionaries Legionaries were the soldiers of the Roman Republic and Empire, who collectively formed groups of between 1,000 and 6,000 men called legions. Legionaries are widely regarded as some of the most effi cient and effective military personnel of the ancient world. Legionaries achieved astonishing victories over the Greeks, the Carthaginians, and dozens of barbarian tribes, often in the face of far more numerous armies. Five distinct types of legionaries served in the Roman legions: light infantry, cavalry, and three kinds of heavy infantry. Members of the light infantry, or velites, were armed with a short sword called a gladius, a bundle of light javelins, and a small round shield that offered limited protection. Velites tended to be recruited from poor citizens who could not afford more elaborate weapons and armor. They were not organized into rigid units; they served instead in a fl exible support role to assist the other types of legionaries The cavalry, or equites, were the most elite and prestigious unit in a Roman legion and tended to number approximately 300 legionaries, regardless of the size of the rest of the legion. They were armed with a comparatively long sword called a spartha, several javelins, body armor, a helmet, and a round shield. Most equites were wealthy citizens who could afford the expense of their equipment and horses. Their main role in battle was to charge at enemy soldiers, particularly when the foes were retreating. Many wealthy Roman citizens became equites in order to provide a foundation for later political careers. legionaries 245 Heavy infantry tended to be drawn from wealthy citizens and were divided into three classes based on age. The youngest heavy legionaries, those in their late teens and early 20s, formed the hastati, which made up the legion’s front line. The second line of heavy infantry was made up of men in their late 20s and early 30s, who were known as principes, or men in the “prime of their lives.” They were armed with a gladius, two heavy javelins, heavy body armor, and a large semicylindrical shield called the scutum. Finally, the third line of heavy infantry was made up of older and very experienced legionaries, the triarii. Triarii were generally equipped with the heaviest armor and carried a long and heavy spear instead of javelins. The primary role of all heavy infantry was to directly engage enemy troops and fi ght to the death. In the fourth and fi fth centuries b.c.e. heavy legionaries fought in units called maniples, which were commanded by centurions. The maniples were arranged in a checkerboard formation so that the maniples in the second line, the principes, would cover the gaps in the front line of hastati. Maniples of triarii, in turn, covered the gaps in between the maniples of principes. When marching across a battlefi eld to engage their enemies, Roman heavy legionaries would fi rst throw their javelins to disrupt the enemy’s front lines. Following this, they used their shields to protect themselves and punch at their enemies in face-to-face combat while stabbing with their short swords. Their goal was to open a hole in the enemy front lines, break the enemy formations, and convince the enemy to fl ee in panic. Velites would assist by throwing more javelins at the enemy to further disrupt their lines. Finally, when the enemy broke, the Roman equites would chase them down and try to infl ict additional casualties. The expense of maintaining a large number of elite soldiers was enormous. As a result, the legionaries disappeared as a class of soldier in the fi fth century c.e. when the political and economic infrastructure needed to support them collapsed. See also Roman Empire. Further reading: Anglim, Simon, et al. Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World: 3000 BC–AD 500. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002; Elton, Hugh. Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350–425. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996; Goldsworthy, Adrian. Roman Warfare. Oxford: Cassell, 2000; Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1994; Keppie, Lawrence. The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984. Scott Fitzsimmons Leonidas (d. 480 b.c.e.) king and general When news came to Sparta that the Persians were advancing for the second time in 10 years into the Greek heartland, only King Leonidas and his hand-picked band of 300 were dispatched to stop them. It was the feast of Carnea, and the Spartans were not inclined to go against their latent isolationist tendencies by committing more resources. Leonidas picked up some Greek recruits along the way, forced some 1,100 Boeotians to join him, and then marched to the strategic pass called Thermopylae. Here some 7,000 troops eventually were dismissed when the Persians outfl anked them. Leonidas refused retreat and held out at the pass for almost three days, probably in August 480 b.c.e. The main historian for this battle is Herodotus, who leaves out many confl icting details known from other contemporary writers and modern archaeologists. Other routes would have allowed the Persians to advance, but for some reason they chose Thermopylae as their main attack. Perhaps the Persian generals expected that the Greeks would melt away in intimidation, for they waited three days before attacking Thermopylae. For the fi rst two days Leonidas and his men brilliantly defend the pass. On the third day of fi ghting the locals give the Persians advice about an alternative and unguarded trail through the highlands overlooking the pass. After an all-night march by the elite Persian force called the Immortals, Leonidas and his troops faced a rear attack along with a frontal assault by the vastly superior Persian regulars. Despite fi erce Spartan resistance that killed two Persian princes, Leonidas and his 300 were slaughtered to the last man. Most of their collaborators and allies also were cut down, with the exception of a few Thebans who are said to have surrendered. The passage of time only increased Leonidas’s reputation. The Persians mutilated Leonidas’s body, but 40 years later, the Spartans claimed to have recovered the corpse. In a ceremonial reburial a fi fth-century b.c.e. hero shrine was established for Leonidas in Sparta. Somewhere on the battlefi eld a monument was erected that announced to future generations the glory of Leonidas and his 300: “Stranger, tell the Spartans that we lie here, being obedient to their words.” A famous lyric poem reads: “Renowned was their fortune and fair their fate. Their tomb is an altar; instead of laments they have remembrance, instead of pity, praise. Their shroud is such as neither decay nor the victory of time will touch, for they were brave men and their graveyard took the glory of Greece for its inmate. To this Leonidas the king 246 Leonidas of Sparta bears witness who has left a great memorial of valor and eternal glory.” Ultimately Leonidas’s gallant action paid off. He probably believed that he could hold out with his small group, given his initial success at Thermopylae. The stealthy movements of the Persian Immortals took him by complete surprise. However, the detainment of the Persians for two days probably made the engagement of Battle of Artemisium necessary, a naval clash that the Greeks won. Leonidas had given Athens the time to evacuate and so the Greek navy prevailed. See also Greek city-states; Persian invasions; Xerxes I. Further reading: Bury, John, and Russel Meiggs. History of Greece. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980; Davis, William Stearns. Victor of Salamis. Whitefi sh, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2005. Mark F. Whitters Leo the Great (c. 400–461 c.e.) pope and theologian Leo I, elected pope in 440 c.e., is one of two popes to have earned the epithet “great,” the other being Gregory the Great. Little is known of his early life. He fi rst appears with certainty in the historical record as holding the important position of archdeacon under Pope Celestine (422–432). When the controversy between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius erupted in 429–431, it was Leo who, on behalf of Pope Celestine, recruited John Cassian to write against the errors of Nestorius. Cassian in turn later honored Leo, calling him “the ornament of the Roman church and of the divine ministry.” We also have Leo’s own testimony that Cyril of Alexandria wrote to him in 431 in order to gain his support in a controversy concerning Juvenal’s attempt to promote the patriarchate of Jerusalem. Under Pope Sixtus III (432–440) Leo continued his service as archdeacon, supporting the pope in his efforts against the Pelagian, Julian of Eclanum. While away in Gaul on a diplomatic mission in 440, Leo learned of his election to succeed Sixtus III and returned to Rome for his coronation. He possessed a very strong conviction that each pope was the direct successor to Peter—and acted as Peter for the sake of the church. This keen conviction of his own role as Peter for the church marked all that he did in the 21 years of his reign. Leo can be credited with three primary accomplishments. First, he was an effective teacher of the Christian faith. Leo’s short homilies (96 in all) reveal both his oratorical skill and his theological insight. He was not a speculative theologian like Augustine of Hippo, but he had a remarkable ability to synthesize eloquently the essentials of the Christian faith. His homilies are largely on the feasts of the church year, and they weave together the profound truths of Christian doctrine with a practical orientation to living the Christian life day to day. Leo also carried a particular burden for the poor; his preaching is marked with a consistent plea for alms and for works of charity. Leo’s second noteworthy accomplishment is as pastor of the Western Latin Church. His letters show how active he was in handling disputes, appointing bishops, and offering pastoral wisdom for many crises of his day. Perhaps his most famous intervention occurred in 452, when he traveled from Rome to Mantua to confront Attila the Hun who was ravaging all of northern Italy. Somehow Leo persuaded Attila to stop his approach toward Rome and withdraw. A few years later, in 455 he confronted the Vandal leader, Gaiseric, outside Rome’s city walls, and persuaded him to limit his destruction of the city. Leo is best known, however, for the role he played in shaping the doctrine of Christ. He was a key player in what is known as the Christological controversy of the fi fth century. In the midst of a debate in 448 between Flavian and the monk Eutyches, Leo composed a doctrinal letter (known as his Tome) on the two natures of Christ. Initially rejected, Leo’s Tome played a crucial role in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Leo is rightly credited with helping to forge the doctrine of the Incarnation for both the Western Latin and the Eastern Greek Church. He died in 461. Because of his many accomplishments— theological, pastoral, and societal—he earned the title “great” and was declared a Doctor of the Western Church by Pope Benedict XIV in 1754. See also Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of. Further reading: Bettenson, Henry, trans. Late Christian Fathers: Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970; Jalland, Trevor. The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great. London: SPCK, 1941. Daniel A. Keating libraries, ancient The preconditions for a society to have a library are a writing script, a level of literacy, schools that foster libraries, ancient 247 literary skills, an educated and resourceful educated class, an interest in reading, and a publishing industry. These conditions favored societies in the Near East and Greece in ancient times, though by the beginning of the Common Era libraries were not unknown in imperial China. The most successful early libraries offered the greatest public accessibility. The seeds of libraries are found in the archives of ancient monarchies and governments. As soon as writing developed it was used by rulers for administration and record keeping. The tablets of Ebla (near Aleppo, Syria) provide an early example. Here excavators found approximately 2,000 clay tablets dating back to 2300 b.c.e., recording information about food, clothing, and raw materials, apparently used as a palace archives. A similar cache was found at Ras Shamra, Syria, refl ecting the 13th-century b.c.e. city Ugarit. Here the writings are of a somewhat more intellectual nature: diplomatic correspondence, laws, history, a little poetry and incantations, and even a Sumerian- Ugaritic dictionary. These early collections were storage places for administrative information. Pleasure reading and general reader access were not high priorities. The palace repository of Ashurbanipal (c. 650 b.c.e.) in Nineveh provides more of an ancient parallel for our topic. The collection included 1,500 titles in cuneiform texts. The fi nding of the Epic of Gilgamesh suggests that the readers here were not merely interested in governing more effi ciently, though the vast majority of texts are resources for Ashurbanipal’s palace bureaucrats. PRIVATE AND SPECIALIZED In the ancient Greek world there is a long history of literacy, books, and education. However, libraries were at fi rst decidedly private and specialized. In the fourth century b.c.e. Aristotle’s personal collection of books was famous, and his Peripatetic school continued in his footsteps. Also, scholars recently discovered a catalog of books that indicates what an ancient library should offer: Homer, Hesiod, the tragedies, even cookbooks. The prevailing attitude, though, was that book collections were for eccentric intellectuals. The foundation of a publicly used library goes back to the followers of Aristotle who migrated to Alexandria when Aristotle’s student, Alexander the Great, died. Perhaps they persuaded the Diadochi monarchs, the Ptolemies, to establish a library like Aristotle’s but to make it available to all as a public resource. Or perhaps the Ptolemies, being Hellenized, simply wanted to subsidize Greek scholarship in Egypt. Thus, the library soon was associated with a circle of Greek thinkers called the “Mouseion” (the gathering place of the Muse inspired). Demetrios Phaleron (345–283 b.c.e.) and a string of other Homeric scholars were Alexandria’s fi rst chief librarians. The fi rst critical edition of the Homeric epics was produced, as well as the fi rst Jewish Bible in Greek. Other library savants probably included Callimachus, Plotinus, and Philo the Jew. It is also likely that religious fi gures such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Gnostics, and proponents of Neoplatonism were patrons in later centuries. Alexandria’s holdings were vast, consisting of at least 500,000 rolls (scrolls), or the equivalent of 100,000 books. The complex had 10 buildings, connected by colonnades and adjoining areas for reading and discussion. The library survived until the days of the Muslim caliphate. One of the main rivals for Alexandria was Pergamum, a beautiful city in Asia Minor. Around the year 200 b.c.e. King Eumenes II or Attalus I founded a library to compete with Ptolemy’s. The Egyptians were so threatened that they banned the export of papyrus, a raw material for book production, which only stimulated the production of parchment as a substitute. The library eventually contained around 200,000 scrolls. Other ancient libraries were also found in such Mediterranean areas as Rhodes, Cos, Pella, and Antioch. The Roman Empire boasted a library institution that linked Greek traditions to the modern world. When Aemilius Paullus defeated Perseus of Macedon in 168 b.c.e., he ransacked the royal library and brought back its books. He wanted to educate his sons in Greek culture, just like the Alexandrians. As Rome’s thirst for Greek learning increased, so did its desire for Greek tutors, books, and libraries. Evidence for fi rst-century c.e. Roman libraries is abundant. Cicero and Plutarch speak much about the procurement of books, the accessibility of books through lending and copying policies, the storage and organization of books, and the reading of books. From the satires of Trimalchio, Seneca, and Lucian, we learn that rich Romans would use their libraries as a mask for their stupidity. They would make a display of their wealth and “high culture” by founding “public libraries.” In the time of Augustus Caesar the state started to take a role in making books available to the public. Emperors started to provide library benefi ts. Julius Caesar made the fi rst plan of a library, though he did not live to see its implementation. There is evidence for libraries erected in honor of Emperors Vespasian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, 248 libraries, ancient Caracalla, and Diocletian. By one count there were more than 28 libraries in Rome alone. Constantine the Great pillaged books from Rome in order to start in Constantinople a collection of 7,000 books. New Rome eventually had 120,000 books. Roman libraries offered more amenities than their Hellenistic forebears. Romans provided reading rooms and easy access to the stacks of books. Ancient library planners advised that the structure should face east to catch the sun, should have green marble fl oors to reduce strain on the eyes, and be decorated with gilded ceilings to increase good light. The still-standing library of Celsus in Ephesus shows that the facade would have busts of famous authors, and the central niche of the reading rooms might be graced with a statue of the library’s benefactor. Rules for lending and hours of service have been found inscribed in stone: “No book shall be taken out, for we have sworn. . . . Open from dawn to midday.” Three other libraries are worth noting. Origen’s third-century c.e. library in Caesarea was used by Jerome and Eusebius. Edessa and Nisibis were intellectual centers of Syriac culture and church, and by 485 c.e. Nisibis had an extensive collection of Greek scientifi c and philosophy books that later made their way into the libraries of the Abbasid Muslims. Justinian I’s sixth-century c.e. library in Constantinople was a resource for his famous Code of Justinian. The decline of libraries has sometimes been associated with the establishment of Christianity and its alleged disdain for the classics and Hellenistic culture. There are stories of anti-intellectual religious mobs burning down libraries, but there are also examples of Christian support for learning (such as the Cappadocians, Basil the Great, and Jerome). In fact, the transmission of classical writings to the Renaissance was due to monastic libraries of the Middle Ages. Probably it is more accurate to say that the worst enemies of libraries were the forces of nature: the worm and fi re. And unfortunately, the decline of Rome led to a decline in the economy and in education. See also Assyria; Benedict; Christian Dualism (Gnosticism); Christianity, early; Damascus and Aleppo; Greek city-states. Further reading: Casson, Lionel. Libraries in the Ancient World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001; Ellens, J. Harold. The Ancient Library of Alexandria and Early Christian Theological Development, Occasional Papers, No. 27. Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity of Claremont Graduate School, 1993. Mark F. Whitters Libya The fi rst Phoenician colonies were established on North African shores around 1000 b.c.e. The original people of North Africa, surviving to this day in the form of various Berber tribes, strongly defended their territory and freedoms from outside domination. The geography of North Africa made it easy to mount attacks on settled territory. Vast tribal armies could be hidden in the Sahara to the south. Despite geographic challenges to settlement, there were also irresistible agricultural riches that could be gathered from the coastal plains and valleys of North Africa. The history of the Roman Empire and the Roman army would have been very different were it not for the breadbasket of Rome that was ancient Libya and North Africa. It provided the “bread and circuses,” grain and olives, and wild beasts to the population of imperial Rome and other imperial cities. The Romans defi ned ancient Libya as all the lands of North Africa to the west of Egypt. Two thousand years ago the climate of the region was very different. The Sahara did not extend as far north, and there were more regular rains. Barbary elephants, lions, and apes roamed the forests. The tribes of Libya were not random, disorganized bands of warriors. Most settlement, however, occurred on the coasts where grain and other goods could be easily transported throughout the Mediterranean. The Romans defeated Carthage in the Battle of Zama in 202 b.c.e., ushering in a new era of Roman colonization of the region. Augustus Caesar for example, granted rich farming territory in North Africa to retired army soldiers and offi cers. Granting land to veterans also gave them an incentive to defend the empire. A vast system of mud walls and forts were erected throughout North Africa on the edge of the desert to defend settlers, and hundreds of new Roman cities and villages were established in the coastal plains of Tunisia and Libya. In cases where it was too diffi cult to defend Roman territory, regions were given over to local client kings, and pacts of peace were signed. Soon many Africans would become integrated into the Roman system. Several Roman emperors, including the formidable Septimius Severus were from North Africa. Other famous Roman North Africans included Apuleius, writer of the fi rst classical novel, The Golden Ass, and Augustine of Hippo, the intellectual father of the Roman Catholic Church. The Byzantines revived Roman North Africa in 533 c.e. after the invasion of the Vandals in 429. Sparked by the revolutionary message of Islam, the Arabs began their rapid invasion of North Africa around 641. Yet the Arabs, like the Romans before them, faced Libya 249 fi erce resistance from the native Berbers. According to legend, the famed Berber queen al-Kahina only surrendered after burning the forests and laying waste to the land. Indeed, centuries after the Arab invasion, cycles of confl ict between the Berbers and Arabs, especially in modern Algeria, continue to this day. Further reading: Apuleius. The Golden Ass. Translated by Robert Graves. New York: Penguin Classics, 1950; Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Penguin, 1985; MacKendrick, Paul. The North African Stones Speak. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980; Raven, Susan. Rome in Africa. New York: Routledge, 1993. Allen Fromherz Linear A and B Linear B is the oldest known form of Greek writing extant today. It is a syllabic script that was used to represent Greek sounds. Adapted from Cretan Linear A, it was probably developed for a language other than Greek. The Minoans and Mycenae used Linear B in their palaces at least 400 years before the Greek Dark Ages. It is quite different from the Greek alphabet, which was based on a North Semitic script and developed after the Greek Dark Ages. Archaeologists became aware of the existence of Linear B in 1878, when a clay tablet was found at Knossos. By 1895 archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans (1851–1941) suspected that it was Greek after examining signs found on seals. Evans published his work in a volume entitled B Cretan Pictographs and Prae-Phoenician Script (1895). In 1900 Evans conducted an archaeological dig at Knossos where he discovered an archive of clay tablets in Linear B, thought to be the archive of the palace of King Minos. Despite years of effort Evans was unable to decipher the Linear B script. However, he was able to conclude that frequently repeated short line markers in Linear B were word markers. The hieroglyphic script of Linear A has yet to be deciphered. Evans noticed that there were parallels between the Cypriot script, which had been deciphered, and Linear B. In 1939 another archive of tablets in Linear B were discovered at Pylos in Greece. Linear B was believed to be Minoan until 1952, when British amateur archaeologist Michael Ventris (1922–56) deciphered it. At fi rst Ventris did not believe that the language represented by the script was Greek, despite the fact that many of the deciphered words were archaic forms of Greek. In 1951 Ventris approached John Chadwick, an expert in early Greek, for help. Together they were able to show defi nitively that Linear B was Greek. Most of the material in Linear B records lists of people, goods, and animals. The occasional use of ideograms such as “tripod” and “horse” provided an important clue for deciphering Linear B. Further study has shown that it has features closely related to the Classical Arcadian and Cypriot dialects. See also hieroglyphics. Further reading: Chadwick, John. The Decipherment of Linear B. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1997; Palmer, Leonard Robert. The Greek Language. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996; ———. The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963; Renfrew, Colin. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Andrew J. Waskey Liu Bang (Liu Pang) (247–195 b.c.e.) founder of Chinese dynasty Liu Bang was also known as Liu Ji (Liu Chi). He was born in 247 b.c.e. to a farming family, was the fi rst commoner to ascend the Chinese throne, founded the longlived Han dynasty (202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.), and died in 195 b.c.e. As emperor he was called Gaodi (Kao-ti), which means “high emperor”; after death he was called Han Gaozu (Han Kao-tsu), which means “high progenitor of the Han.” He was admired for his abilities, generosity, and taking advice from his ministers. A minor offi cial in 209 b.c.e., Liu rose in revolt against the oppressive Qin (Ch’in) dynasty and joined forces with Xiang Yu (Hsiang Yu), the foremost rebel general. They agreed that the fi rst to enter the Qin capital area would be king. In 206 b.c.e. Liu’s forces entered the Qin capital Xienyang (Hsien-yang) and received the surrender of the last Qin monarch. He was generous in victory, protected the Qin royal family, and forbade looting. However, irreconcilable rivalry between Xiang and Liu led to war between them. Xiang’s brilliant generalship was nullifi ed by his cruelty and arrogance; abandoned by his allies and troops, Xiang committed suicide in 202 b.c.e. 250 Linear A and B Liu then assumed the title of huangdi (huang-ti), or emperor, of the Han dynasty, becoming known by his reign title Gaodi. He chose Chang’an (Ch’ang-an) as his capital for its strategic location (it lies in the vicinity of Qin capital Xienyang). Gaozu was a pragmatic and humane ruler. He lowered taxes, relaxed the severe Qin laws, proclaimed a general amnesty, and practiced frugal government so that the people could recover from decades of wars and high taxes. He maintained the Qin system of central government but was realistic: He divided the empire into two halves. The western portion was organized into 14 provinces and counties, which were administered by central government appointees, while the eastern half was organized into 10 kingdoms ruled by his independently powerful allies over whom he only gradually gained control. Gaozu’s greatest problem was how to deal with the nomads called Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) along his northern frontier. Qin armies under the formidable general Meng Tian (Meng T’ien) had defeated the Xiongnu, linking existing walls into the Great Wall of China. In 209 b.c.e. the Xiongnu came under a ruler named Maotun (Mao-t’un) who not only led raids into Han territory but also enticed some of the semi-independent kings under Gaozu to defect to him. In 201 b.c.e. Gaozu led a mostly infantry force of 300,000 men to battle Maotun’s larger cavalry force and narrowly escaped capture. The two sides signed a peace treaty to the Xiongnu’s advantage. In addition to establishing a border along the Great Wall, Gaozu agreed to marry his only daughter by his wife Empress Lu to Maotun and to give him regularly large quantities of silks, food, and liquor. Empress Lu vetoed the handing over of her daughter, and another girl from the Liu clan was given the rank of princess and sent to be Maotun’s wife. Thus began 60 years of appeasing the Xiongnu because the Han government thought peace necessary to China’s economic recovery. Gaozu died of an arrow wound in 195 b.c.e. while campaigning and was succeeded by his young son; in reality his strong-willed widow, Empress Lu, also of commoner origin, would rule for the next 15 years. Further reading: Dubs, Homer H. The History of the Former Han Dynasty by Pan Ku, a Critical Translation with Annotations. 3 vols. Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press, 1938–51; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Lo-lang Lo-lang commandery was one of four commanderies established in Korea after the conquest of the northern and central part of the peninsula by China’s Han dynasty in 108 b.c.e. It was the most prosperous among the four commanderies and remained under Chinese control until 313 c.e. Contacts between China and the Korean Peninsula intensifi ed after the establishment of the Han dynasty in China (202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.). In 194 b.c.e. a Chinese named Wei Man (Wiman, in Korean) fl ed China after a failed revolt and established a state called Choson in northern Korea. In 109 b.c.e., on pretext that Wei Man’s successors were harboring Chinese fugitives, Emperor Wu sent an expedition against Choson, defeating it and establishing four commanderies on the peninsula after 108 b.c.e. They were Lo-lang (Korean: Nangnang) in the northwest, whose administrative capital was that of the Choson kingdom, near modern Pyongyang; Chen-fang (Korean: Chinbon) to its south; Lin-tun (Korean: Imdun) in the northeast; and Xuan-tou (Korean: Hyondo) in the north. By 1–2 c.e. only Lo-lang and Xuan-tou remained, comprising 28 counties. The retreat was motivated by native unrest and the lack of strategic reasons to maintain control in remote regions on the peninsula. But even as the Han dynasty was disintegrating in the early third century c.e., the Chinese were still powerful enough to found a new commandery called Tai-fang (Korean: Taebang) in the Han River valley in west-central Korea. Lo-lang was a rich outpost of Chinese civilization for four centuries. It had 25 counties with 400,000 registered inhabitants. Many tombs excavated near Pyongyang contained some of the best products of Han artisans: many items, such as lacquerware, were made in other regions in China, but some must have been the products of local Chinese immigrants. Because of its cultural dominance and the lure of trade, Korean tribal leaders in areas outside the commanderies offered tribute and received patents of offi ce from the Han government. With China divided and in a state of civil war at the end of the Han dynasty, Lo-lang commandery fell in 313 c.e. and Tai-fang soon followed. Lo-lang and other Chinese commanderies in Korea were comparable to Roman colonies in Britain. They served to transmit advanced culture to the occupied countries, however, more effectively in the case between China and Korea than between Rome and Britain. As Chinese political infl uence ended in Korea in the fourth century c.e., naive Korean states would emerge. Though these states were not the direct political heirs of Chinese rule, they nevertheless received much of their Lo-lang 251 institutions and culture from contacts with China through its colonial outposts. Importantly Korea also served as the conduit between China and Japan. See also Han Wudi (Han Wu-ti). Further reading: Gardiner, K. H. J. The Early History of Korea. Camberra: Australian National University Press, 1969; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Lu, Empress (d. 180 b.c.e.) Chinese ruler Empress Lu’s given name was Zhi (Chi). Both she and her husband, Liu Bang (Liu Pang), founder of the Han dynasty in China (202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.), were born commoners. In 195 b.c.e. Liu Bang, who is known in history as Gaozu (Kao-tsu), meaning “high progenitor,” died of an arrow wound in battle. His eldest son by Empress Lu became the new ruler Huidi (Hui-ti). Huidi reigned as an adult even though he was only 15 years old. He was noted for his fi lial piety and respect for learning. He ordered the lifting of a ban on books that the previous Qin (Ch’in) dynasty had enacted. However, his strong-willed mother, who vindictively killed one of her husband’s concubines and several of her stepsons, dominated Huidi. Her actions so terrifi ed him that he became bedridden for a year and never dared to challenge his mother again. Huidi died in 188 b.c.e., leaving a young son. That son, and another whom Empress Lu adopted as her grandson, became puppet emperors with the empress as regent. Empress Lu followed her husband’s policy of government, which included peace with the powerful Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) nomads. In 192 b.c.e. she received this letter from Maotun (Mao-t’un), the Xiongnu ruler, which read: “I am a lonely widowed ruler, born amidst the marshes and brought up on the wild steppes in the land of cattle and horses . . . Your Majesty is also a widowed ruler living in a life of solitude. Both of us are without pleasures and lack any way to amuse ourselves. It is my hope that we can exchange that which we have for that which we are lacking.” This was a marriage proposal to join their two empires. Although the empress was furious, China was too weak for war, and she had to reply humbly thus: “My age is advanced and my vitality is weakening. Both my hair and teeth are falling out, and I cannot even walk steadily . . . I am not worthy of his [Maotun’s] lowering himself. But my country has done nothing wrong, and I hope he [Maotun] will spare it.” She did, however, send a Han princess to be his wife. Empress Lu refrained from formally proclaiming herself as reigning empress, but many of her actions seemed preparation for the enthronement of a man from the Lu family as emperor. She appointed a brother as chancellor and another as commander in chief and elevated several members of her family to the titles of kings and marquises, granting them large fi efs. Encouraged by her policy, members of her family attempted to seize power when she died in 180 b.c.e., but surviving members of the Liu clan and Han loyalists thwarted them. A son of Gaozu led a march on the capital city Chang’an (Ch’ang-an), captured the city, and wiped out the Lu clan. Empress Lu set a precedent for most of the Han era: strong mothers and grandmothers of young rulers seizing power and elevating their families. Some rulers would be murdered when they grew up and attempted to regain power, others were intimidated to acquiesce. One, the long-lived Empress Wang allowed her brothers to share power, and eventually allowed her nephew Wang Mang to usurp the throne in 9 c.e. Further reading: Dubs, Homer H. The History of the Former Han Dynasty. Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press, 1938–55; Jagchid, Sechin, and Van Jay Symons. Peace, War, and Trade along the Great Wall, Nomadic-Chinese Interaction through Two Millennia. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1989; Paludan, Ann. Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors. London: Thames and Hudson, 1998; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Volume 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Lucian (c. 117–c. 180 c.e.) author, satirist Lucian came from the town of Samosata (modern-day Samsat, Turkey) in the Roman province of Syria. Likely of Semitic background, he learned of the Greek language and culture as an outsider. He had a very short apprenticeship as a sculptor under an uncle and then began his education in earnest, becoming skilled in Greek language and rhetoric. He became a successful speaker on the lecture circuit, a more important part of his career than the law courts. He made his way as far 252 Lu, Empress as Gaul (France), and Athens was his home for some time. Around the age of 40 he gave up his vocation as a public speaker to take up philosophy, or rather to write dialogues concerned superfi cially with philosophical matters but vigorously larded with touches of comedy. About 80 works have come down to us from his hand, some spuriously. They testify to the education in rhetoric that Lucian had, his wide reading in the literature of the Greek world of prior eras, and his consciousness of being a Greek by acculturation. These works can be divided into a number of genres. Some are rhetorical exercises (for example, In Praise of the Fly, where the rhetorician displays his ability to praise things unworthy of praise); others are short pieces presented to introduce a longer lecture. A large number are dialogues, either actual or reported, wherein he sometimes uses verse. He also wrote essays on a variety of topics, romances of a sort, biographies, and one or two playlets. Dear to Lucian was the “description,” a subgenre in its own right, and he displays a truly remarkable ability to give the reader a picture of some painting or other object. However, he is perhaps best known for his comic dialogues, a type he considered to be somewhat of a novelty. Lucian uses a variety of characters in these works, including famous people of bygone eras, gods and goddesses often ludicrously portrayed, and, most intriguingly, a person, sometimes named, sometimes not, who is no doubt the persona of the author. From this springboard, among others, Lucian was able to do what he did best—ridicule the minor idiocies of humans and the unique silliness and gullibility of humankind. Attacked by his pen are those he considered to be false prophets, religious charlatans, superstitious folk, and proponents of a certain fanatical interest in the niceties of classical Attic diction. This last group is especially interesting because, as an outsider, Lucian was interested in the proper usage of language, and yet he was able to see the excesses involved in such interest. Ultimately, Lucian is an amusing skeptic, though not a serious thinker, and extremely diffi cult to set within a typology of litterateurs; in a way he is sui generis. As a late writer had it, Lucian was “serious—at raising a laugh.” The vigor of his language, his powers of description, and especially his adroitness in poking fun at man’s idiosyncrasies and foibles, made him one of the most infl uential authors for later Western literature. See also Greek oratory and rhetoric; Second Sophistic. Further reading: Branham, R. Bracht. Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989; Jones, C. P. Culture and Society in Lucian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Joel Itzkowitz Luoyang (Loyang) Luoyang was a capital of China from c. 1100 b.c.e. to the mid-10th century c.e. The Zhou (Chou) dynasty initially ruled from the capital city Hao, located at the confl uence of the Wei and Yellow Rivers. After defeating the last Shang king, King Wu of Zhou placed three of his brothers in the Shang capital, Yin, to supervise a Shang prince whom he had put in power at that location. Wu soon died, leaving the throne to his young son under the regency of his uncle, the Duke of Zhou. Jealous of the Duke of Zhou’s power, his three brothers and the Shang prince rose in revolt. The Duke of Zhou acted decisively, defeated the rebels, laid waste to Yin, executed the Shang prince and one of his brothers, and went on to conquer more land to the east. Then he founded an auxiliary capital to administer the new conquests in the east, later called Luoyang, located at the junction of the Luo (Lo) and Yellow Rivers in present- day Henan (Honan) Province. In 771 b.c.e. nomadic invaders forced the Zhou court to fl ee Hao to Luoyang, where it remained until the dynasty’s end in 256 b.c.e. Few architectural remains have been found that date to the Eastern Zhou in the environs of Luoyang; however, tombs of that era are abundant. Luoyang was rebuilt during the Western Han dynasty (202 b.c.e.–9 c.e.) as a subsidiary capital and enlarged as the principal capital during the Eastern Han dynasty (25– 220 c.e.). A rammed earth wall 50–65 feet thick at the base enclosed a square-shaped city, pierced by 12 gates; about half a million people lived within its limits. Due to a change of course by the Luo River, part of the Han city now lies underwater, but signifi cant sections of the wall, traces of streets, and foundations of palaces remain. One palace was located at each the northern and southern end of the city, connected by a covered passage. In addition to enlarging the city, Emperor Guangwu (Kuangwu), founder of the Eastern Han, also began building the Tai Xue (T’ai-hsueh), or Imperial Academy, in 29 c.e. It was subsequently enlarged several times, until it accommodated more than 30,000 students. In 175 c.e. Emperor Ling ordered the complete Confucian Classics cut on stone; the slabs were installed at the Tai Xue. Rubbings made on paper (invented in China in the fi rst century c.e.) from the slabs were the precursor to printing. Luoyang 253 Luoyang was devastated by rebels toward the end of the second century c.e. and was destroyed by Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) nomads in 311 c.e. The Turkic Xiongnu were replaced by Tungustic nomads called the Toba (T’o-pa), who ruled northern China as the Northern Wei dynasty from Datong (Ta-tung), a frontier town; they were rapidly converted to Buddhism and assimilated to Chinese culture. In 495 the Tobas moved their capital from Datong to Luoyang. Outside the city, on a rocky escarpment on the bank of river Luo they began to excavate cave temples at a site called Longmen (Lung-men) to show devotion to Buddhism. Luoyang became the second capital of the Tang (T’ang) dynasty (618–909 c.e.), which expanded the Longmen cave temples. Most of Tang Luoyang has perished, except for the Longmen caves. After the fall of the Tang, Luoyang would never be capital city again. See also Chang’an; Wen and Wu. Further reading: Gascoigne, Bamber & Christina. The Dynasties of China: A History. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003; Wang, Zhongshe. Han Civilization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur lyric poetry Lyric poetry maintained a small but dedicated following in the Hellenistic world, especially from the seventh century b.c.e., and in the Greek-speaking Mediterranean, with a focus in Alexandria. It was relatively uncommon in the Latin world, although it was popular in China, Japan, and Persia. Many poems of the ancient world were epics written for dramatic use, whereas lyric poetry was of a personal nature and depended not on characters and actions but in addressing the listener directly—most poems were recited or sung—and portrayed the state of mind of the poet. The Greek term lyrikos, fi rst appears in the seventh century b.c.e. and comes from the word for “lyre,” which often accompanied the recitations. Some scholars point out that seventh-century lyric poetry is predated by fi nished meters of the earliest surviving lyric poems, which suggest that the custom was much older. The lyric age seems to have come about when poets devised poems tied to a particular occasion. Alcman’s “Maiden Song” is one of the earliest known lyric poems attributable to a particular poet and is about a festival to the gods, but there is little remarkable about it except that it has been preserved to the present day. The other well-known Greek lyric poets include Alcaeus, Anacreon, Archiochus, Bacchylides, Ibycus, Lasus, Mimnermus, Pindar, Sappho, Simonides, Steseichorus, Theognis, and Xenophanes. Some of these have remained obscure, but a few, such as Sappho, are well known. Born on the island of Lesbos in the seventh century b.c.e., she was hailed as being “the tenth muse,” with her poetry collected and arranged in nine books. Little is actually known about her life, although much has been extrapolated from her poems or speculated upon by later writers. The study of lyric poetry is by no means new. Greeks in the period after Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e.) wrote about lyric poets, with Dichearchus writing about Alcaeus, and Clearchus of Soli writing On Love Poetry about Sappho and Anacreon. A body of lyric poems was edited by scholars at the library at Alexandria, with the literary tradition encapsulating nine lyric poets: Alcaeus, Alcman, Anacreon, Bacchylides, Ibycus, Pindar, Sappho, Simonides, and Steseichorus, all of whom lived in the period 650–450 b.c.e. Outside the Western classical world lyric poetry has been used in India in ancient times, but most of it remains anonymous. Lyric poetry was also popular in Han dynasty China and the period of the Warring States and Three Kingdoms, with important poets being Cao Cao (155–220 c.e.), Cao Pi (the former emperor Wen, 187–226 c.e.), and Cao Zhi (192–232 c.e.). The best-known Japanese lyric poets are Ariwara no Narihara (825–880), Ono no Komachi (c. 825–c. 900) and Saigyo (1118–90). The Persian tradition includes Anvari (1126–89), Asadi Tusi (d. 1072), Attar (c. 1142–c. 1220), Ferdowsi (935–1020), Omar Khayyam (1048–1131), Nezami (1141–1209), and Rudaki (859–941). While translations of Greek and Latin poetry and literature have been available in the West for many centuries, access to Chinese and Japanese material has long been limited. The very style and atmosphere of Oriental lyric poetry was more evasive to effective translation and transliteration to European languages until recently. Further Reading: Cairns, Francis. Greek and Roman Poetry: Greek and Roman Historiography. Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 2005; Conrad, Carl W. From Epic to Lyric: A Study in the History of Traditional Word-Order in Greek and Latin Poetry. New York: Garland, 1990; Gerber, Douglas E. Euterpe: An Anthology of Early Greek Lyric, Elegiac, and Iambic Poetry. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1970; Grant, Michael. Roman Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954; Paschalis, Michael. Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry. Rethymnon: University of Crete, Department of Philology, 2002. Justin Corfi eld

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Ladislas (1040–1095) king of Hungary, saint Ladislas was king of Hungary and the second ruler of the Árpád dynasty to achieve sainthood. At the end of the 10th century the Magyar leader Géza and his son Stephen began the conversion of the pagan Magyars to Christianity and the foundation of Hungary as an independent Christian kingdom. In 1000 Pope Sylvester II crowned Stephen king of Hungary, establishing the country’s independence from the Holy Roman Empire (early). Neither Christianization nor the foundation of the state was fully complete at Stephen’s death in 1038, and the succession struggle demonstrated both the strength of pagan religious practice in the country and the vulnerability of the kingdom to foreign, particularly German, infl uence. In the following 40 years Hungary was subject to two pagan uprisings and nine invasions from Germany, Bohemia, and Poland. The crown changed hands eight times and between 1044 and 1046 the kingdom was ruled directly by Henry III as a fi ef of the empire. Ladislas (Hungarian, László) assumed power in 1077 following the death of his uncle, Géza I, but only secured his rule by defeating the deposed King Salamon and his Cuman allies in 1083. Ladislas pursued policies that strengthened the Christian Church, increased the kingdom’s independence from German infl uence, and extended its power in southeastern Europe. In the investiture struggle between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV, Ladislas supported the pope and his German allies. As part of the anti-imperial alliance he married Adelaide, the daughter of Duke Welf of Bavaria. Henry IV’s continued troubles allowed Ladislas to extend his control over southern Hungary, Transylvania, and Croatia. In a series of campaigns along the lower Danube he defeated the Pechenegs and their allies among the remaining pagan Magyars. In Transylvania, he established the fortress of Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) and settled Magyar-speaking Szekler tribesmen in the southeastern corner of the country, giving them communal rights in exchange for military service as frontiersmen. After the death of his brother-in-law King Zvonimir of Croatia, Ladislas occupied Slavonia and incorporated it into the kingdom of Hungary, establishing four new counties between the Drava and Sava rivers. To consolidate the church and complete the process of converting the Magyars and other inhabitants of the kingdom to Christianity, Ladislas founded new bishoprics in Nagyvárad (Oradea) and Zagreb. It was in Ladislas’s reign that Hungary’s fi rst king, Stephen I, and his son Imre were sainted. The earliest Hungarian chronicle, the Gesta Hungaracorum, which recounted the early history of the Magyars and their conquest of the country, was composed at his court. In 1095 Ladislas died while preparing to join the First Crusade. Soon after the fi rst miracles associated with him were reported. For these and his contribution to completing the Christianization of Hungary he was canonized in 1191. A number of legends surround the life and deeds of Ladislas, many of them clearly adaptations or repetitions of older pagan Magyar myths, retold with a Christian hero. After St. Stephen, Ladislas made the most signifi cant contribution to the foundation of the kingdom of Hungary and its conversion to Latin Christianity. See also Maygar invasions. Further reading: Kosztolynik, Z. J. Five Eleventh Century Hungarian Kings. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981; Lendvai, Paul. The Hungarians: 1000 Years of Victory in Defeat. London: Hurst and Company, 2003; Sugar, Peter, ed. A History of Hungary. Seattle: University of Washington, 1990. Brian A. Hodson Lalibela (d. 1207) Ethiopian king When the Axumite empire, believed to have been established by the son of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba, fell in the 11th century, the Zagwe dynasty took power. Of non-Solomonic origins, the Zagwe moved the Ethiopian capital from Axum to Roha (present-day Lalibela about 400 miles north of Addis Ababa). King Lalibela was the most famous of the Zagwe monarchs. Much of his life is shrouded in myth. His name means “the bees recognize his sovereignty,” after the legend that upon his birth, bees representing soldiers surrounded him to protect and serve their monarch. King Lalibela, (r. 1167–1207) was a devout Christian; his subjects believed he had traveled to Jerusalem as well as having been transported by angels to the heavens. Lalibela sought to create a new Jerusalem in his capital traversed by a small river named the Jordan. Over the course of 25 years, Lalibela constructed 11 churches hewn out of solid rock. The churches are connected by a maze of tunnels and underground pathways, dotted by caves used by monks. Beit Giorgis, named after Saint George, the patron saint of Ethiopia, was carved under ground level. It is 12 meters high, with a cross-shaped fl oor plan, covered by a roof decorated with carved crosses. King Lalibela is buried in the Beit Maryam church while another, Beit Medhane Alem, is thought to be one of the largest monolithic churches in the world. As with Gothic architecture in medieval Europe, these monuments represent a fusion of religious belief and political power. The Zagwe dynasty collapsed in 1270 when it was overthrown by an heir to the Solomonic line of Ethiopian rulers. Further reading: Marcus, Harold G. The History of Ethiopia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994; Munro-Hay, Stuart. Ethiopia: The Unknown Land: A Cultural and Historical Guide. London: I. B.Tauris, 2002. Janice J. Terry Lateran Councils, Third and Fourth In the 12th, 13th, and 16th centuries in the Lateran Palace in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church held fi ve councils. The fi rst took place in 1123 to ratify the Concordat of Worms (1122), while the second took place in 1139 to reaffi rm church unity after the schism of 1130–38. The Third Lateran Council (1179) was called by Pope Alexander III to end the schism (1159–77) of antipope Calixtus III and his predecessors and to establish procedures for the election of popes. The Fourth Lateran Council, the most important of the fi ve, was the culmination of the Lateran effort, with the fi fth being largely unproductive. In March 1179 about 300 church fathers met at Rome for the Third Lateran Council. The Third Lateran Council was to ratify an earlier agreement between the pope and the Holy Roman emperor. Alexander and Emperor Frederick I (1152–90) had agreed at Venice in 1177 to end the long-standing schism in the church. Frederick had supported Victor IV over Alexander as pope and declared war against the Italian states and Roman church. The schism lasted long enough to bring into power two additional antipopes, Paschal III (1164– 68) and Calixtus III (1168–78), both opposed to Alexander. Alexander fi nally prevailed and, as he promised at Venice, called the general council to end the schism and the dispute with the emperor. Having resolved the schism, the council established procedures for election of the pope; electors were to be only the College of Cardinals, the Sacred Conclave, and election required a two-thirds majority of all cardinals voting. Having undone the damage done by the antipopes and settled the election of the pope, the church fathers condemned the Albigensians and Waldensians as heretics. Also known as the Poor Men of Lyons, the Waldenses or Waldensians or Vaudois were led by Peter Waldo, a Lyonnaise merchant. Waldo gave away his property in 1176 and began a life of itinerant preaching of apostolic poverty as the route to perfection. Waldensians believed only in the Bible, and simple Bible reading, sermons, and the Lord’s Prayer constituted their services. They rejected the papacy, indulgences, the Mass, and 244 Lalibela purgatory. They also believed that all Christians contained the Holy Spirit and could preach; lay believers could replace priests. Their doctrines are contained in the Waldensian Catechism of 1489. Similar pre-Reformation groups include the Humiliati. The Albigensians took another heretical approach. Because the church barred lay preaching, in 1179 the Waldensians met with Alexander III, who blessed them but prohibited their preaching without approval from their local clergy. The Waldensians preached anyway. Lucius III declared them heretics in 1184, as did the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. In 1211 at Strasbourg, more than 80 Waldensians were burned as heretics. The Albigensians were French Cathars, probably named for the southern town of Albi, which was the center of their movement. Labeled by Innocent III as dualists, they were followers of the old Mediterranean-area Manichean belief that good and evil had their own divinities. They believed that existence is a struggle between good and evil, Jesus Christ and God against Satan. Material objects—food, wealth, and the human body—belonged to Satan, who had imprisoned the soul in a body. A good life could free a soul, but a failed life meant that the soul was reincarnated to try again. Believing that the church was a tool of Satan, they refused to become Catholic. The Albigensian Crusade (1208–29) was Alexander’s answer to their refusal to join the church. Simon de Montfort also crusaded against them until 1218. In 1233 the Dominican inquisition effectively ended the Albigensian heresy, although persecution of survivors persisted into the 14th century. In Italy until 1184 local bishops were responsible for dealing with heresy. In that year Pope Lucius III and Emperor Frederick I met at Verona and issued a condemnation of various sects, including the Cathars, Humiliati, and Patarines. The pope issued the bull Ad abolendam, which set out penalties for heresy by clerics and laymen while establishing a process of inquisition by the bishops. The legislation against French heresy applied equally to Italy. There were no missions or Crusades in Italy as there had been in France. Heresy remained a problem despite the best efforts of the church leaders at the Third Lateran Council. Innocent III would have to address it again at the Fourth Lateran Council. Although one of the youngest popes ever elected, Innocent was perhaps the best pope of this period. He built the Papal States, reduced the power of his possible rivals in Hohenstaufen Germany, elaborated a theory of papal authority, and defi ned the relative limits of kingship in relation to that authority. He sponsored the Fourth Crusade, planned the Fifth Crusade, and took measures to eradicate heresy. Most of this work was part of the Fourth Lateran Council. Innocent was the author of the position that “there is but one Universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation.” He felt the power of the papacy increasing, but he also knew that the Crusades were going badly, with the Children’s Crusade of a few years earlier being the worst. He needed a council to reinforce the defense of the faith, aid the crusaders in Palestine, and reaffi rm freedom of the church from lay interference. He sent church and secular rulers his bull of April 19, 1213. Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. This council was the most important of the Lateran Councils. More than 1,000 churchmen attended. Some 71 patriarchs and metropolitans (including two from the Eastern church), 412 bishops, 900 abbots and priests, and many representatives of European rulers responded and met at the largest council ever. The council issued 70 decrees that dealt with penalties for heresy and procedures against heretics and those who protected them, a proclamation of papal primacy, and order of succession through the various sees—Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The council established rules for the clergy concerning hunting, drunkenness, attendance at performances, performance of surgeries, and conduct of trials by combat or ordeal. It also dealt with taxes, litigation within the church, matrimony, tithing, simony, and Jews. It barred the establishment of new monastic orders. It defi ned the Easter duty, utriusque sexus, that required confession at least annually, and it prescribed that Muslims and Jews had to dress in such a way that they were distinguishable from Christians. The council defi ned the Eucharist to include transubstantiation for the fi rst offi cial time. It made offi cial that transubstantiation was the mysterious change of bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The council affi rmed that Frederick II, not his rival Otto, was the Holy Roman Emperor. It also promoted a new crusade in the Holy Land as well as one against the Albigensians and Waldensians. This council was the peak of the medieval papacy’s prestige. The Fourth Lateran Council was a summary and reaffi rmation of existing laws regarding heresy. When Innocent died in 1216 the church had everything it needed, including the precedents for the Inquisition. See also heresies, pre-Reformation; Schism of 1054; Wycliffe, John. Further reading: Audisio, Gabriel, trans. by Claire Davison. The Waldensian Dissent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Lateran Councils, Third and Fourth 245 Press, 1999; Bellitto, Christopher M. The General Councils. New York: The Paulist Press, 2002; Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies. New York: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988; Costen, Michael. The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997; Jordan, W. C. Europe in the High Middle Ages. New York: Penguin, 2002; Morris, Colin. “The Pontifi cate of Innocent III (1198–1216).” The Papal Monarchy (July 1991). John H. Barnhill Latin states of the Crusades The history of the fi rst crusading kingdom of Jerusalem commences with the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christian army, led by Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lorraine, on July 15, 1099. The crusading host stormed the city and, having slaughtered the native population, captured the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Although the religious mission was accomplished, the political goals of the crusading leaders were yet to be achieved. Following Jerusalem, other towns fell to the crusaders: Haifa in 1100, Arsuf and Caesarea in 1101, Acre in 1104, Sidon in 1110, Tyre in 1124, and fi nally, Ascalon in 1153. At the same time the crusading leaders established their control over some trans-Jordan areas, as well as by the northern coast of the Red Sea. Godfrey of Bouillon never assumed the title of the king, addressing himself merely as a “defender of the Holy Sepulcher.” He died childless on July 18, 1100, and on Christmas Day of the same year, his brother Baldwin of Boulogne was crowned as Baldwin I. It was under him that the crusading army captured most of the aforementioned towns. He died on April 2, 1118, and the kingship passed to the hands of his cousin, Baldwin of Bourcq, crowned as Baldwin II (1118–31). Upon his death, his son-in-law, Fulk, count of Anjou, succeeded the crown. His reign (1131–43) is characterized by political and social unrest in the kingdom, which was divided between the “king’s party” supporting Fulk and the “queen’s party” following his wife, Melisende. With Fulk dead, Melisende attempted to rule on her own, provoking anger of her young son, Baldwin III (1143–63), and his supporters. The latter forced the queen to give up her intention. Among Baldwin III’s achievements were the conquest of Ascalon (1153) and rebuilding of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (completed in 1149). His younger brother Amalric (1163–74) initiated three Egyptian campaigns against Nur al-Din, capturing Bilbais on November 1168. Amalric’s son Baldwin IV the “Leper” (1174–85) was surrounded by court intrigues and conspiracies. At the center of these intrigues stood Baldwin’s sister Sibylle with her second husband, Guy of Lusignan, and Raymond III, count of Tripoli. Baldwin died in May 1185, leaving the Crown to Sibylle’s son Baldwin V, still a boy. The latter died on September 13, 1186, and Sibylle was crowned with Guy, who was captured by the Muslim leader Saladin (Salah ad din, Yusuf), in the Battle of Hittin (July 4, 1187). Despite their political control over vast territories, the crusading kings could never achieve continual peace and their rule was permanently threatened by the Muslim enemies, as well as their Christian rivals—Frankish nobility. The Islamic threat became evident with the conquest of Edessa in 1144 by a Muslim warlord Zangi, while the crusaders’ weakness was proved by inability of the Christian forces to cope with the Muslim army, which eventually captured Damascus on April 25, 1154. The failure in the north was followed by a similar failure in the south: a new Muslim leader, Salah ad Din, also known as Saladin, (1138–93), repelled the crusading forces in 1169 in Damietta, and 1174 in Alexandria. Having subdued his Muslim rivals between 1174 and 1186, Saladin moved on the attack against the Christians. On July 4, 1187, he defeated the crusading army led by King Guy in the Battle of Hittin, leaving the rest of the Christian towns exposed to his threat. Acre was captured on July 10, 1187, while Jerusalem capitulated on October 2 of the same year. The fi rst crusading kingdom came to its end. THE SECOND CRUSADING KINGDOM OF ACRE (1189–1291) The disaster of Hittin and fall of Jerusalem provoked a strong reaction in western Europe, whose leaders rose to a new crusade. Led by Richard I the Lionheart of England, Philip II Augustus of France, and Frederick I Barbarossa, the German emperor who died on his way to the Holy Land, the crusading host had arrived before the walls of Acre in the summer of 1189. After two years of siege the city was recaptured on July 12, 1191. The Christian unity did not last long; Philip Augustus decided to return to France, while Richard remained in Palestine. He failed to capture Jerusalem and on September 2, 1192, the Christian and Muslim armies came to a settlement. The coastline stretching between Jaffa and Tyre came into the hands of the crusaders, while Jerusalem remained under Muslim control, with holy 246 Latin states of the Crusades sites accessible to pilgrims. Acre effectively became not only a political capital of the new crusading kingdom, but also its cultural and economic center. The city was strongly multicultural in character, being home to Italian, French, English, German, Greek, Muslim, Jewish, and Eastern Christian communities. The struggle with the Muslims resumed in 1219, when John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem, and his army penetrated into Egypt, capturing Damietta. From there they moved to Cairo, which they failed to reach, having suffered a defeat at the hands of the Ayyubid sultan al-Kamil (1218–38) on August 30, 1221, near al-Mansura. The crusaders’ lives were spared in exchange for Damietta. The next crusading initiative came from the German emperor Frederick II (1212–50), who came to Palestine in September 1228 with a large army. Fearing Frederick’s military advantage, al-Kamil offered a treaty, which granted the crusaders Jerusalem, Galilee, and part of Sidon and Toron. Jerusalem remained in Christian hands until 1239, when the Ayyubids briefly captured it, only to be restored to the Christians in 1240. The Christian rule of Jerusalem came to its end four years later, with the conquest by the Khorezmian Turks in the summer of 1244. The crusade of Louis IX of France (1229–70) did not aim at the reconquest of the Holy City. On June 6, 1249, his forces seized Damietta and moved on to Cairo, only to suffer the fate of their predecessors of 1221. On April 6, 1250, his army was badly beaten at al-Mansura and as the result the king and his men were taken captive. The Latin population of Acre did not always live in peace. The tensions were especially apparent between The crusading host stormed the city of Jerusalem and, having slaughtered the native population, captured the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Although the religious mission was accomplished, their political goals were yet to be achieved. Latin states of the Crusades 247 the Venetian and Genoese communities, who struggled over commercial supremacy in the region. The War of St. Sabas broke out in 1256 and lasted until the Genoese defeat in 1258. Following the defeat the Genoese were forced to leave the city and their territory was overrun by the Venetians. In the meantime a new threat had emerged from the Mamluks, who in 1250 overthrew the Ayyubid Sultanate in Egypt and established their own military rule. Faced with the crusading presence and the Mongol threat, under Sultan Baybars (1260–77) and his heirs, the Mamluks conquered the remaining towns, villages, and forts of the crusading kingdom, forcing its inhabitants into exile. The European population of the Outremer sharply fell, resulting in the inability of the crusaders to stop the Mamluks, and led to the fi nal fall of the kingdom. On May 18, 1291, the inhabitants of Acre, the capital town of the kingdom, surrendered and those not slain by the conquerors returned to Europe, mainly France and Italy. The town was laid to waste and remained so until it was rebuilt in the 18th century. The history of the Latin kingdom in the Holy Land came to an end. MINOR CRUSADING STATES The conquest of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, may signify the establishment of the fi rst crusading kingdom, but not the fi rst crusading state. As early as March 1098, Baldwin of Boulogne, the future king Baldwin I of Jerusalem (1100–18), forced the Armenian principality of Edessa to accept him as its new master. Baldwin assumed the title of count of Edessa, establishing the fi rst Latin principality in the Near East. Two years later upon the death of his brother Godfrey of Bouillon (July 18, 1100), the fi rst ruler of the kingdom of Jerusalem, Baldwin changed his title to king of Jerusalem. Baldwin of Bourcq was also crowned as Baldwin II of Jerusalem (1118–31). While Baldwin II exercised full control over both the kingdom of Jerusalem and the county of Edessa, his successor handed the lordship of Edessa to the hands of the family of Courtenay. The fi rst count of the Courtenay dynasty was Joscelin I (1119–31), who was succeeded by Joscelin II (1131–49). It was under the latter that the Muslim leader Zangi captured the principal town Edessa in 1144 and forced the Christian ruler and his family to desert it. Zangi killed the male Christian population of the city, reduced the women and children into slavery, and decimated the city in 1146. Joscelin moved to Turbessel, where he had established his power, only to be captured by the Turkish sultan of Konya, Masud, in 1149. The latter handed Joscelin over to Nur al-Din, who took him captive to Aleppo, where the count died in prison in 1159. His wife, Beatrice, granted the remains of the county to the Byzantine emperor. The son of Joscelin and Beatrice, Joscelin III, retained the title, without ever ruling the county. The history of the county of Tripoli goes back to 1102, when Raymond of Saint-Gilles, a crusading leader, named himself as count of Tripoli. He did not live to capture the town itself, which surrendered in July 1109. A struggle between Raymond’s cousin William Jordan of Cerdagne and his eldest son, Bertrand, followed the conquest of the town. The rivalry ended thanks to the intervention of Baldwin I of Jerusalem, who installed Bertrand as his vassal. The latter died in 1112 and soon after, the county passed to his young son, Pons, who attempted to set himself free from the authority of Baldwin II, his suzerain. Pons’s rebellion was crushed in 1122, although he retained his county. He ruled until 1137 when the townsfolk of Damascus killed him. His successor, Raymond II, faced a political challenge from Bertrand, the illegitimate son of Alfonso Jordan, son of Raymond of Saint-Gilles. He eventually overcame his challenge with the aid of Nur al-Din. After his murder by the Assassins in 1152, the rule passed to his son, Raymond III (1152–89). In 1164 he was captured and imprisoned by Nur al-Din, while on a campaign to relieve the siege of Harim, along with Bohemond III of Antioch and Joscelin III of Edessa. During their imprisonment, Amalric of Jerusalem was regent of the county. Raymond III was released in 1172 and two years later rose to the position of regent of Jerusalem. He died in Tyre in 1187, having installed his godson, Bohemond IV, prince of Antioch, as his successor. The two baronies were united, with a brief exception of the years 1216–19, until the fall of Antioch in 1268. After the death of Count Bohemond VII in 1287, the county sank into political and social chaos, which was exploited by the Mamluk sultan Qalawun. The city fell into his hands in 1289, after a siege. The origins of the principality of Antioch go back to the conquest of the city in 1098 by Bohemond of Taranto, the fi rst prince of Antioch. The latter died in 1103 leaving the principality to his young son, Bohemond II, while Tancred of Hauteville and Roger of Salerno acted, respectively, as his regent until 1119. In October 1126 Bohemond was married to Alice, daughter of Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem (1118–31). The union of two crusading families did not last long: His Muslim enemies killed Bohemond in February 1130. Bohemond left a young daughter, Constance, whose regent was Raymond of 248 Latin states of the Crusades Poitiers. In 1136 Raymond had offi cially assumed the title of the prince of Antioch and remained in power until his death in the battlefi eld on June 29, 1149. During his rule, the Byzantine emperor John Komnenus invaded Antioch in 1137 and captured towns that threatened the principality. The campaign was repeated in 1142 and the integration of the principality into the empire was hindered only by John’s death in 1143. In 1153 Constance married Renaud of Châtillonsur- Loing, a man of well-established knightly family, who was taken captive by his Frankish enemies in 1161. As a result, the magnates of Antioch forced Constance to hand the title of the prince to her son, Bohemond III. The latter joined Raymond III, count of Tripoli, in a military campaign against Nur al-Din. The result of this campaign was a complete defeat of the Christian army in 1164. According to the Muslim sources, Nur al-Din was advised to capture Antioch, which he did not do. Raymond was ransomed by the emperor and restored to the principality. However, the real ruler of Antioch was King Amalric of Jerusalem. In the course of Saladin’s campaigns of 1280–90, the territory of the principality had been reduced to the surroundings of the town of Antioch. The Armenian prince Leo exploited the weakness of Bohemond III, attempting to capture the city. The local population in 1194, however, drove out his army. Upon Bohemond’s death in April 1201, his older son Bohemond IV succeeded him, also reigning as count of Tripoli, being adopted by Raymond III of Tripoli. The two Latin baronies were united under one prince. Unlike the kingdom of Jerusalem, Antioch survived the assault of Saladin, with the assistance of the Italian city-states, but afterward did not play any important role in the subsequent Crusades. After Bohemond IV’s death in 1201, the principality was torn by a power struggle between the two rivals, Bohemond of Tripoli, the future Bohemond V (1207–23), and Raymond- Ruben of Armenia, Bohemond III’s grandson. The struggle between Antioch and Armenia ended with the marriage of Bohemond VI and an Armenian princess, Sybille. The city and the entire principality fell to the Mamluks in 1268. The title prince of Antioch passed to the king of Cyprus, after the fall of Acre in 1291. Although not European countries, the Latin states of the Near East played an important role in the political, social, economic, and cultural life of Europe in the High Middle Ages. The very idea of the crusading knight became the ideal of the European nobility. The encounter with the Orient and its culture, different from that of the West, had enriched the horizons of the Europeans. The Outremer states, at times through the mediation of Italian city-states, maintained vital mercantile connections with Europe, acting as the supplier of African gold and spices. See also Albigensian Crusade; Crusades; Horns of Hattin, Battle of the Further reading: La Monte, John L. Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1100 to 1291. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932; Mayer, Hans Eberhard. The Crusades. Trans. by John Gillingham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972; Munro, Dana C. The Kingdom of the Crusaders. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company Incorporated, 1935; Prawer, Joshua. The Crusaders’ Kingdom, European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972; ———. The World of the Crusaders. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1972; Prutz, Hans. Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge. Berlin, 1883; Richard, Jean. The Crusades, c. 1071–c. 1291. Trans. by Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; Röricht, Reinhold. Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (1100–1291). Innsbruck: Verlag der Wagner’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1898; Smail, R. C. The Crusaders in Syria and the Holy Land. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973. Philip Slavin Lazar I (d. 1389) Serbian ruler Since at least the 19th century Serbs have memorialized the defeat and death of Lazar I at the Battle of Kosovo in (1389) as an event of central signifi cance in the nation’s history. The defeat of Lazar’s forces by the army of Ottoman sultan Murad I is frequently used to mark the end of independent, medieval Serbia and the beginning of Turkish rule. Popular songs and poems dating back to the 16th century or earlier recount the martyrdom of Lazar, who according to tradition was visited by an angel the night before the battle and offered a choice between a heavenly and an earthly kingdom. Choosing the former he was then betrayed by a rival prince secretly allied to Murad. Some versions of the story include a Serb nobleman who demonstrated his true loyalty by sneaking into the Ottoman camp and killing the sultan before the battle. The traitorous prince is commonly identifi ed as Vuk Brankovic´ and the loyal noble as Miloš Obilic´, both supposedly sons-in-law of Lazar and rivals for his Lazar I 249 attention. Nationalist writers have used this tale of divine selection, betrayal, loyalty, and deceit to symbolize the historical destiny of Serbia and explain its subsequent incorporation into the Ottoman Empire: 1299–1453. Between the 12th and early 14th centuries Serbia was united under the Nemanyich dynasty, which consolidated Serb control over much of the central Balkans. The last ruler of the dynasty, Czar Stephan Dušan (r. 1331–55), built a short-lived Serbian empire, extending his control over Albania, Macedonia, and much of Greece, and promoting the elevation of the archbishop of Ipek to the position of patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Following Dušan’s death his son Uroš proved unable to maintain his father’s legacy, and real authority quickly slipped into the hands of a number of regional lords. In 1371 one of his supporters, Vukašin, was killed at the head of a large Serb army in battle with the Turks on the Maritsa River. Uroš died two months later, ending the Nemanyich dynasty and with it any real hope for the revival of the Serb empire. The country disintegrated into a number of independent but weak principalities, each vying for territorial control. The strongest of the remaining Serb rulers was Lazar Hrebeljanovic of Kruševac. In 1374 a gathering of Serb nobles at Ipek recognized him as their leader. Lazar consolidated his position by concluding marriage alliances with the leading nobles in Kosovo and Montenegro, Vuk Brankovic´ and Gjergj Balsha. He also developed close relations with King Tvrtko of Bosnia, the strongest ruler in the region. To further bolster his position, he cultivated the support of the Serb patriarch by granting the church additional lands and founding the monastery of Ravanica. Though successful in establishing and defending his role as the leading prince in Serbia, Lazar was unable to reunite a Serb state. As for other Serb rulers, Lazar’s relations with the Ottoman Turks were complicated. In the 14th century Ottoman infl uence in the Balkans was growing rapidly, capitalizing on the internal disorder and decline of the Byzantine, Bulgarian, and Serbian empires. Numerous Christian rulers entered into alliance with the Turks or accepted vassalage in return for Ottoman support in their struggle with neighboring princes. Christian forces were commonly found fi ghting on the sultan’s campaigns and Turkish soldiers were occasionally lent to Christian princes. Throughout, the Ottomans steadily gained territory and strength, emerging as the leading power of the region. In 1386 Murad seized Niš from Lazar and two years later raided Bosnia. The following spring the Ottomans prepared to occupy Lazar’s possessions in Kosovo as a prelude to an attack on Bosnia. Lazar called on the assistance of Tvrtko, who provided a large force, as did Lazar’s son-in-law, Vuk Brankovic. The two armies met at Kosovo Polje on June 15, 1389. Both armies suffered heavy casualties and Lazar and Murad died in the battle, at the end of which Lazar’s army fl ed. Though the Ottoman army controlled the fi eld, Murad’s son Bayezid I abandoned the campaign in the Balkans and led the remaining Turkish forces against his brother in Anatolia in order to secure his succession to the throne. There is no direct historical evidence supporting the details of the popular legends associated with the Battle of Kosovo. The identifi cation of Vuk Brankovic as Murad’s secret ally in the battle and the betrayer of Lazar is unlikely given his subsequent, fi rm resistance to the Ottoman advances in the region. Similarly the suggestion that Lazar’s defeat marked the end of the medieval Serb empire and the beginning of Ottoman rule fails to account for the dissension of the Serb nobles following Dušan’s death, their continued independence in the half-century following the battle, and their frequent cooperation with the Turks throughout the period. Though it was likely not the epic confrontation described in Serb folk traditions, Lazar’s defeat in the Battle of Kosovo, as the battle on the Maritsa in 1371, marks the gradual decline of Serb resistance to Ottoman expansion in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. In both cases, the Serbs suffered large casualties. After the battles Serb princes were divided in their reaction to Ottoman victory, with some continuing to resist and others seeking to accommodate the Turks. Further reading: Fine, John. The Late Medieval Balkans. Detroit: Michigan University Press, 1987; Malcolm, Noel. Kosovo: A Short History. New York: New York University Press, 1998; Sugar, Peter. Southeast Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354–1804. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977. Brian A. Hodson Le dynasty of Annam At the same time that the Chinese Ming dynasty sent its vast fl eets across the Indian Ocean to Africa, it also mounted an invasion of Annam, today part of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The sudden Ming incursion caused the native Vietnamese Ho dynasty to collapse. The Ming attack had been precipitated by the 250 Le dynasty of Annam coup of Le Qui Ly onto the throne of the Ho dynasty in 1400. He reorganized the kingdom and set about building an especially strong military system, something that the Ming emperor Jianwen (Chien-wen, r. 1399–1402) did not see in the interests of Chinese security. The occupation of Annam continued until 1407, when Emperor Yongle (Yung-lo, r. 1403–24) brought back the Chinese troops, perhaps because the expense was taking money from his gigantic project of building a large, ocean-going fl eet. The impetus for the withdrawal of the Chinese was the rise of Le Loi, who began a fi erce resistance struggle against Chinese occupation, which Yongle did not want to see consume his imperial treasury. Calling himself Prince of the Pacifi - cation, Le Loi established what became the Le dynasty in 1428. At that time, Le Loi took the royal title of Le Thai To. He renamed the country Dai Viet and began the process of rebuilding his country after the Ming occupation. With the Chinese threat removed, he demobilized much of his army to free money for the reconstruction of the country’s infrastructure, which had virtually been destroyed by the Ming. However he followed the Chinese pattern in establishing the new administration for Vietnam. China was governed by the scholar class, recruited through extremely hard examinations. Thus the emperor governed imperial China through an effective civil service. To reorganize Annam, Le Loi established the College of National Sons to train a civil administration for his kingdom. Entrance to the college was virtually free of infl uence of birth, thus opening a career of government service to large numbers who would otherwise have been denied entry. On the death of Le Loi (Le Thai To) in 1443 the country suffered a period of disorder until his son, Le Thanh Tong, was able to assert his claim to his father’s throne. He ruled from 1460 to 1497. Le Thanh Tong built on the administrative foundations laid by his father. At the same time, he carried out the expansion of his kingdom. To the south, he invaded the Champa kingdom. However Le Thanh To was careful about antagonizing China and was scrupulous about his payment of tribute to the Ming court. At the same time on his western frontier, he repelled raids from the Lao people, from whom modern Laos derives its name. It was clear in his conquest of Champa that he intended to colonize, not just raid. Le Thanh established military colonies of Annamese veterans in the region to weld it to his kingdom. Moreover, the opening of Champa served as a “new frontier” for the Annamese people of Dai Viet, giving many peasants the opportunity to farm land there, which they did not have in their original homeland. Upon Le Thanh’s death in 1497 the Le dynasty entered a period of fatal decline. In 1527 Mac Dang Dong, one of the administrative mandarins, seized the throne after having already been effective ruler for a decade. The Nguyen and Trinh families, loyal to the Le dynasty, rebelled against Mac Dang Dong. The realm of the old Le dynasty was destroyed from within. Further reading: Mote, Frederick W., and Denis Twitchett, eds.The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 1 & Part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988; Tong, James W. Disorder under Heaven: Collective Violence in the Ming Dynasty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992. John F. Murphy, Jr. Liao dynasty The Liao dynasty (916–1125) was founded and ruled by a people called Khitan (Ch’i-tan), originally hunter-gatherers living in southern Manchuria along the Liao River valley, who gradually learned farming and herding. The Khitan were vassals of the Chinese Tang (T’ang) dynasty (618–907) in an unstable relationship. Because of their location on the frontier of the Chinese empire, they were also involved with other nomadic groups, most notably the Turks. In the ninth century around 50 Khitan tribes coalesced under the dominant Yelu (Yeh-lu) clan, transforming them into a dynastic state. The Khitan religion was shamanism, many of whose features were retained even after they adopted Buddhism in the ninth century. Scholars still debate over the linguistic affi liation of the Khitan language, which was probably traceable to several sources: Mongolian, Turkic, and Tungustic. Because there was no written Khitan until the 10th century, early records of them were solely from Chinese sources that go back to the fourth century. A written script was fi rst invented in 920, called the Khitan Greater Script, adapted from Chinese, but was not mutually intelligible and is mostly deciphered. A Khitan Lesser Script adapted from Uighur writing was invented in 924. Texts carved on stone in both scripts exist alongside Chinese texts; therefore some of the words have been deciphered. Written Khitan was not used after the dynasty fell and died out. Liao dynasty 251 KHITAN EXPANSION The Khitan seized the opportunity offered by a disintegrating Tang dynasty to begin their expansion. In 901 a powerful Khitan chief led an army of his people and began to conquer into northeastern China, seizing 16 prefectures in present Hebei (Hopei) province, including the city that would later be called Beijing. In 907 the chief of the Yelu tribe named Abaoji (A-po-chi) assumed the title of emperor and proclaimed his state the Great Liao. He created a dual empire, part sedentary and part nomadic. The sedentary part was called “south-facing”; it was bureaucratic, headed by a southern chancellor, and staffed by Han Chinese who had surrendered to him. It would rule the sedentary Han Chinese people under the Liao, based on a modifi ed and harsher version of Tang laws. The southern chancellery’s task was to collect taxes from the Chinese subjects and to oversee their production of items the Khitan court required. The Tang style examination system was even instituted later, but the Chinese were treated as a subservient caste. Chinese people were recruited to serve in the infantry that supported the Khitan cavalry and as a labor corps. The Khitan tribal people were to retain their tribal and nomadic traditions under a “north-facing” administration headed by a northern chancellor. They were ruled under their tribal laws. This dual system of government functioned for 200 years. Abaoji built walled cities throughout his lands. He also built fi ve walled capital cities. The Supreme Capital was in central Manchuria, where the Khitan people originated according to their legend. The Eastern Capital was also built in central Manchuria, where modern Liaoyang is located. A Central Capital was 100 miles south of the Supreme Capital and its function was to administer a newly conquered tribe; the Western Capital was the old Chinese city Datong (Ta-tung) along the Great Wall of China in modern Shanxi (Shansi) province. The Southern Capital was the renamed Chinese city called Yan (Yen), at modern Beijing. Even though the cities conformed to Chinese concepts of city planning, large areas were left vacant to accommodate the yurts (tents) of the Khitan. SINICIZATION OF THE KHITAN The Liao court moved from capital to capital, reminiscent of their nomadic ways. Despite resistance to Sinicization, the Khitan adopted many Chinese ways and began to enjoy the numerous luxuries their Chinese subjects offered. On the other hand such Khitan customs as the levirate (a man’s right to take his brother’s widows as his wives) and the sacrifi ce of many human victims when an important man died continued. Even Abaoji’s powerful chief wife, who was also mother to his heirs, was asked to kill herself to be buried with him. She refused, claiming that her young adult sons still needed her guidance, but cut off one of her hands to be buried with her husband. Nor did the Khitan fully adopt the Chinese rule of succession by primogeniture (where the eldest son of a ruler’s wife succeeded him on the throne) but continued to select one among the deceased man’s sons by consensus and acclamation, with the result that murderous succession struggles followed each ruler’s death, causing political instability. Whereas few Chinese learned Khitan, the elite among the Khitan soon became fl uent in written Chinese. Chinese was the international diplomatic language among the East Asian states and all treaties and diplomatic correspondence were in Chinese. Even the Northern Chancellery produced few if any documents in Khitan, and there are no drafts in Khitan of Liao correspondence with the Song (Sung). The educated Khitan had much to gain from learning Chinese because of the abundance of written works produced in that language. When most Khitan became Buddhists in the 10th century, learning Chinese also gave them access to the teachings of Buddhism. In time the Khitan elite came to call those of their own people who strictly adhered to their nomadic traditions as “wild Khitan.” In the 10th century the Liao state confronted two enemies among its sedentary neighbors. One was Korea, where a long-lasting dynasty was established over the unifi ed peninsula in 918 called the Koryo dynasty. It would last until 1392. Liao invaded Koryo in the 890s and 990s and forced the Koryo kings to become Liao vassals, following the widely accepted Chinese tradition of interstate relations with its neighbors. LIAO AND SONG (SUNG) RELATIONS Liao’s main neighbor and adversary was the Song (Sung) dynasty in China (960–1279). The initial peaceful relationship between the Song and Liao ended in 979 when Song emperor Taizong (T’ang-tsung) attempted to recover the 16 prefectures in the Beijing area the Liao had earlier conquered. He was beaten back, and later for a second time. In 1004 the two sides fi nally made a peace treaty, called the Treaty of Sangyuan. It fi xed their borders to refl ect Liao’s control of the 16 prefectures, stipulated the opening of several markets for trade between the two states, and declared the two states equal to each other and their rulers as “brother” sovereigns; both promised not to build fortifi cations along their border. Signifi cantly the Song agreed to give 252 Liao dynasty the Liao annually 100,000 ounces of silver and 200,000 bolts of silk. Song records called it a “gift” to save face and argued that the cost was cheaper than war. The Liao however called the mandatory one-way gift a “tribute.” A new treaty between the two in 1042 increased the Song mandatory gift by 100,000 units in each category, justifi ed in offi cial Song accounts as “extending gentle kindness to faraway peoples to win the hearts.” The century-long stability between the Song and Liao after the Treaty of Sangyuan provided stability and prosperity for both states. Until 1031 strong rulers with long reigns also ensured Liao power. Thereafter rulers of lesser ability, some youths, ascended the throne. The lack of a certain set of rules on succession resulted in power struggles within the ruling Yelu clan and among its allied clans that weakened the monarchy. The Liao state was further weakened by the unresolved strains caused by factions that either supported or opposed Sinicization. The Liao also had to deal with nomadic tribal groups along its frontier. North of the Khitan homeland there lived a primitive people called the Jurchen, who began their entry into history as the oppressed vassals of the Khitan. Then appeared a powerful Jurchen chieftain named Wanyen Aguda (Wan-yen A-ku-ta ) (1068–1124), who coalesced his fi erce warrior followers in eastern Manchuria and began raiding Liao outposts. In 1114 he defeated a Liao army sent against him. Emboldened he proclaimed himself emperor of the Jin (Chin) dynasty in the following year. The Jurchen had long sent tributes to the Song, traveling by sea to the Song controlled coast in order to bypass Liao territory. Since both Song and the Jurchen had long held grudges against the Liao, they made a treaty jointly to attack the Liao and destroy it totally, then to share the spoils. Mainly because of the fi ghting qualities of the Jurchen warriors and with little assistance from the Song, the Liao dynasty ended in 1125. Further reading: Franke, Herbert, and Denis Twichett, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Vol VI Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368. 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; Shen Hsuehman, ed. Gilded Splendor: Treasures of China’s Liao Empire, 907–1125. New York: Asia Society, 2006; Sinor, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Tao, Jiengshen. Two Sons of Heaven: Studies in Sung-Liao Relations. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1988. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Lithuania, Grand Duchy of The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the last pagan state in Europe. Landlocked and protected by dense forests and impassable wetlands, Lithuania was spared the fate of the other Baltic peoples, who were either converted or killed by German and Scandinavian colonizers between the late 12th and early 14th centuries. Their geographical location also protected the Lithuanians from Rusian armies and the Golden Horde, who conquered much of eastern Europe in the mid-13th century. Yet Lithuania’s position on the Nemunas River system would also later make it an important economic crossroads in the trade between eastern and western Europe. During the 14th century Lithuania fl ourished under a series of able rulers, called “grand dukes,” in imitation of their neighbors to the east, the rulers of Rus. Based out of the ancient (and present) capital of Vilnius, the nascent state began to expand east, into the Rusian lands abandoned by the retreating Tartars. By 1323 they had conquered Kiev, the ancient Rusian capital. The survival of this pagan state on the frontiers of Christendom deeply disturbed the papacy, which made numerous attempts to convert the Lithuanians. Despite their best efforts, the permanent conversion of Lithuania came not at the instigation of papal legates, but rather at the request of Polish nobles, who offered Grand Duke Jogaila the hand of Queen Jadwiga and the throne of the kingdom of Poland. In 1386 Grand Duke Jogaila became King Władysław (Ladislas) II of Poland. Lithuania, which had been called the “the spawn of Satan” by Christians in the 13th and 14th centuries, now together with Poland became the “bulwark of Christendom,” defending it fi rst from the Tartars and later from the Ottoman Turks. The Lithuanian state was the largest in Europe at that time, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Even after the death of the last member of the dynasty in 1572, the state they had created remained an important player in European politics. EARLY LITHUANIA The fi rst mention of Lithuania in western sources occurs in an entry in the Annals of Quedlinburg for 1009, which states that the missionary Bishop Bruno of polish “el”Querfurt was martyred there. Historians, however, do not know much about Lithuania before the mid- 13th century. Its geography made it almost impassable for armies in all but the coldest months of winter, which spared it from the fi rst waves of western European expansion along the Baltic littoral, as well as from the territorial ambitions of various Rusian princes and the Lithuania, Grand Duchy of 253 ravages of the Golden Horde. Lithuanian society at this time was governed by a loose association of clans based on hill forts, who supported themselves mainly through agriculture, but also through trade and plunder. In the early 13th century power coalesced around the leaders of one of these clans—Ringaudas, whose son, Mindaugas, ruled Lithuania for 25 years (1238–63). During Mindaugas’s reign he began to take a more active interest in the affairs of his western neighbors. He granted German merchants the right to trade in his lands, and even allied himself with his former enemies, the Teutonic Knights, against western Lithuanians who did not wish to submit to his rule. This alliance with his German neighbors was symbolized by Mindaugas’s baptism in 1251. Two years later he was crowned by Pope Innocent IV, becoming king of Lithuania. In this same year, Christian, a member of the Teutonic Knights, was enthroned as bishop of Livonia in the new cathedral in Vilnius. Mindaugas’s conversion however, while a feather in the cap of papal diplomacy, did not have a far-reaching impact on Lithuania for a couple of reasons. First very few of Mindaugas’s subjects followed his example. Second, the new policies that followed his conversion, including allying with the Teutonic Knights, succeeded in further aggravating nobles who were already displeased with Mindaugas’s rule. In 1259 the frustrated bishop left his seat, and a year later the rebelling western Lithuanians dealt the Teutonic Knights a crushing defeat. The following year Mindaugas apostatized, but some of his subjects were not easily placated. Two years later in 1263, the fi rst great ruler of the Lithuanians was assassinated. Mindaugas’s death was followed by seven years of civil war, which included the assassination of three of his successors. In 1270 a new ruler emerged, Traidenis, a member of one of the rival clans of Lithuanian nobles. A staunch pagan, Traidenis ruled Lithuania until he died of natural causes in 1282. There is a gap in the historical evidence in the years following his death, but by 1290 a new dynasty emerged that would govern Lithuania (and after 1385 Poland as well) until 1572. Lithuanians worshiped a pantheon of gods, led by Perkunas, the equivalent of the Scandinavian Thor. The few literary sources describing the religion of the Lithuanians were written by Christians, who often were not neutral observers of pagan practices, which they often tried to fi t within the framework of their own belief system. One example of this was the claim made by the Teutonic Knights’ early-14th century chronicler, Peter of Dusburg, that a pagan “pope” led the Lithuanian cult. Using these sources and other descriptions of Baltic religion and archaeological sources, historians have argued that Lithuanian religion was loosely organized and based on the worship of nature. Priests and priestesses practiced divination both by casting lots and through animal sacrifi ces. The brief appearance of Christianity in Vilnius does seem to have had some impact on Lithuanian paganism, as archaeological excavations of Vilnius cathedral have demonstrated that a pagan temple was erected on the site of Mindaugas’s church after his demise. The ostensible leader of the Lithuanian cult was the grand duke, and it appears that rulers after Mindaugas learned that a monumental religious building could be a powerful expression of central authority. The most likely builder of the temple was Gediminas, who reestablished Vilnius as a political capital in the fi rst years of his reign. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GRAND DUCHY The founder of the new dynasty, Pukuveras, did not have a great impact on Lithuania, because of his brief reign (1290–95). During the reigns of his sons, Vytenis (1295–1315) and Gediminas (1315–42), on the other hand, Lithuania would dramatically expand politically, geographically, and economically to become one of the most important states in east-central Europe. In 1298 during a dispute between the archbishop and burghers of Riga and the Teutonic Knights, Vytenis offered the Rigans a Lithuanian garrison to defend this important commercial center from their common enemy. Although the Rigans were fi nally compelled to expel the pagan garrison in 1313, diplomatic and economic relations between the Lithuanians and Rigans continued. Gediminas continued these policies when his brother died in 1315. Gediminas built up the Lithuanian economy, inviting foreigners to settle in villages and towns by sending letters to the numerous German towns. He also granted German merchants generous privileges throughout his realm and guaranteed their safety along certain routes, called the vredelant, or “land of peace.” Although trade with the pagans was condemned by the papacy, especially the trade of military supplies, commerce prevailed throughout the crusading period, even between the Lithuanians and the Teutonic Knights. In fact trade between these two states helped to fi nance their wars with each other. Gediminas was aware of the necessity of forming military alliances with his Catholic neighbors, the Rigans and the Poles, against their common enemy, the Teutonic Knights. But he had to be careful about 254 Lithuania, Grand Duchy of offending his subjects—the pagan Lithuanians as well as the Orthodox Rusians, who were quickly becoming the majority of those living in the Lithuanian state. The Lithuanians had long taken an active role in the affairs of their Rusian neighbors, and some prominent Lithuanians had been baptized according to the Eastern rite. For example one of Mindaugas’s sons became an Orthodox monk, eventually becoming the patron saint of Pskov, while another of his sons, Vaisvilkas, also retired to an Orthodox monastery after ruling Lithuania for three years (1264–67). In addition lacking a written culture of their own, Lithuanian rulers used the language of their Orthodox subjects, Chancery Ruthenian, at their courts. During Gediminas’s reign these contacts intensifi ed. Through a combination of conquest and marriage alliances, Lithuanian rule was extended farther into Rusian lands, as the Lithuanians fi lled the power vacuum left by the retreating Tartars. By 1323 Gediminas had conquered Kiev, the ancient capital of Rus. In 1315 Gediminas established a separate metropolitan for Lithuania in Novgorodok, which would free his Orthodox subjects from the ecclesiastic control of a Muscovite metropolitan. During the course of the next century, this Lithuanian metropolitanate would be reduced to the rank of a bishopric and then elevated again as the patriarch of Constantinople sought to manipulate the political landscape of Rus. At the same time that he appealed to the head of the Eastern Church, Gediminas was also actively seeking the help of the leader of the Western Church to orchestrate a truce with the Teutonic Knights. The price for this truce would be the conversion of Lithuania. Gediminas informed Pope John XXII of his intensions in 1322 and joined his longtime allies, the archbishop and burghers of Riga, in condemning the atrocities committed by their common foe, the Teutonic Knights. His letter outlined the history of Lithuania’s relationship with Latin Christianity, noting Mindaugas’s conversion as well as his brothers’ defense of Riga. When the papal envoys arrived in 1324, however, Gediminas had changed his mind, which led some earlier scholars to argue that his letter to the pope was a Rigan a forgery. Gediminas had been reminded of Mindaugas’s fate by some of his pagan and Orthodox subjects. When the papal legates departed in 1325, Gediminas looked to the west for a new ally and found King Władysław Lokietek of Poland, who was also involved in a dispute with the Teutonic Knights. In this same year Aldona (baptized Anna), one of Gediminas’s daughters, was married to Władysław’s only son, Casmir (Kazmierz). Although the Polish-Lithuanian alliance dissolved after Anna’s death in 1339, the memory of this union would have a tremendous impact on the destinies of both states. After Gediminas’s death in 1342, his son, Jaunutis, assumed the grand ducal throne. Despite the fact that he was his father’s chosen heir, his reign was brief (1342– 45), because his brother, Algirdas, drove him into exile in Moscow. Grand Duke Algirdas’s reign proved to be lengthy (1345–77), in part because he reconciled his position not only with Jaunutis, to whom he granted land from his patrimony, but also with his six other brothers. His youngest brother, Kestutis, was his greatest ally, and he was given the important task of defending Lithuania’s western border from the Teutonic Knights. Algirdas continued his father’s program of expansion into Rus, attacking Moscow and trying to reestablish the metropolitanate for the Lithuanian Rus. He also followed in his father’s footsteps of offering to be baptized—this time to both the pope in Avignon and the patriarch of Constantinople—and then denying these intentions. Despite these ploys, he, like his father, was tolerant of the Christians who lived in his realm, at least as long as they respected Lithuanian religious practices. Five Franciscans found this out the hard way when they were executed for proselytizing. When Algirdas died he wanted his throne to pass to his son, Jogaila, but Kestutis challenged his nephew’s succession. In 1381 Kestutis overthrew Jogaila, but the usurper was assassinated a year later. When Jogaila returned to power in 1382, he considered taking a Muscovite princess as his bride in the hope of eventually fulfi lling his father’s pretensions to the title of grand prince of All Rus. The resurgent power of the Tartars, however, signaled by their sack of Moscow in 1382, caused the young grand duke to turn west for a bride, to the kingdom of Poland, with which his grandfather had been allied and which had also just lost its king. UNION WITH POLAND When King Casimir III the Great of Poland died without a son in 1370, his crown passed to his nephew, Louis of Anjou, king of Hungary. Following his death in 1382, the nobles of the two kingdoms were divided as to who should succeed him. After two years of fi ghting it was decided that his older daughter, Maria, would succeed him in Hungary, while his younger daughter, Jadwiga, would succeed him in Poland. In 1384, at the age of 10, Jadwiga was crowned queen. Although she had previously been betrothed to Wilhelm von Habsburg, prince of Austria, the Polish nobles rejected this marriage and Lithuania, Grand Duchy of 255 instead looked east to pagan Lithuania. This was not such an odd decision, however, considering the historical relationship between the two states, and King Casimir’s fi rst wife was a Lithuanian princess. When Grand Duke Jogaila accepted Christianity in 1386, which was one of the preconditions of his assuming the throne, he took the Christian name Władysław, the name of Casimir’s father, the ally of his grandfather, Gediminas, and the restorer of the Polish kingdom. The following year Władysław II returned to Vilnius and established a bishopric there to manage his pagan subjects’ conversion to Christianity. When the childless Jadwiga died in 1399, the Polish- Lithuanian state faced a dilemma. In two important assemblies in 1401 and 1413, the Polish and Lithuanian nobles decided to make the Krevo Union (named after the place in which it was created in 1385) permanent. In fact, unlike other contemporary mergers of states, such as the Kalmar Union, which united the Scandinavian kingdoms in 1397, the Polish-Lithuanian union would prove to be lasting, even surviving the demise of the Jagiello dynasty (named after the Polish version of Jogaila’s name—Jagiello) in 1572. Building upon this consensus Wladyslaw II led an army against the perennial enemies of Poland and Lithuania, the Teutonic Knights, dealing them a crushing defeat at the Battle of Grunwald in 1410. His second son, Casimir IV (his fi rst son, Władysław III, having been killed trying to stop the advance of the Ottoman Turks into Europe at the Battle of Varna in 1444), was a ruler equal to his father, in both ability and longevity— while his father ruled Poland-Lithuania for 45 years (until 1434), Casimir ruled for 48 (until 1492). He also defeated the Teutonic Knights in the Thirteen Years’ War (1454–66) and annexed many of the Knights’ possessions, which had formerly belonged to Poland. Some scholars have called him “the father of Central Europe,” because his sons ruled the neighboring kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary in addition to Poland-Lithuania, and his grandson was Albrecht von Hohenzollern, the last grand master of the Teutonic Knights, who secularized the order in 1525 and founded the dynasty that was to rule Prussia (and later Germany) until the end of the First World War. The eminent scholar Jan Dlugosz, who wrote the fi rst comprehensive history of Poland, educated these children. Casimir’s fourth son, Zygmunt I “the Elder,” as his father and grandfather ruled for more than 40 years (1506–48) and expanded his kingdom at the expense of the Teutonic Knights, who in two stages (1525 and 1561) were incorporated into the kingdom. His reign, however, was marred by the growing power of his two neighbors to the east—Moscow and the Ottoman Empire. Because of these threats, Zygmunt looked west to the Habsburg empire for aid. In 1515 at the Congress of Vienna, a double wedding was arranged. Zygmunt’s son, King Louis of Hungary and Bohemia, would marry the emperor’s daughter, while the emperor’s son would marry Zygmunt’s daughter, Anna. Unfortunately for the territorial ambitions of Poland-Lithuania, the childless Louis died trying to defend Hungary from the Ottomans at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526. The Habsburgs now controlled what was left of Hungary as well as Bohemia. Following this disaster Zygmunt had his son, Zygmunt II August, crowned co-ruler in 1529 at the age of nine. He and his father ruled together for nearly two decades—“the Elder” in Kraków, and Zygmunt II in Vilnius. In the years following his father’s death, the childless and ailing Zygmunt II was anxious to see that his family’s legacy as rulers of a united Polish-Lithuanian state did not end with his death. Near the end of his life he convened the Sejm (parliament) nearly ever year in an attempt to convince the Polish and Lithuanian nobles to form a united republic, ruled by an elected monarch. On July 1, 1569, the religious and secular magnates of Poland and Lithuania swore to Zygmunt to uphold the Union of Lublin, which combined their two lands. Three years later the last of the Jagiellonians died. The legacy of the state created by Jogaila, however, would endure long after the demise of his dynasty. The last pagan ruler in Europe had transformed his state into the “bulwark of Christendom,” and several of his descendants gave their lives in its defense. But Poland- Lithuania was also a multiethnic and multireligious polity, the survival of which necessitated toleration. In 1573 the Confederation of Warsaw guaranteed the religious rights of all the subjects of Poland-Lithuania— Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims. The largest state in Europe at that time, the republic created by Zygmunt II would endure for more than two centuries, until it was fi nally partitioned among Russia, Prussia, and Austria in the late 18th century. See also Habsburg dynasty (early); Ladislas. Further reading: Davies, Norman. God’s Playground: A History of Poland. Volume I: The Origins to 1795. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982; Gimbutas, Majia. The Balts. New York: Praeger, 1963; Rowell, Stephen C. Lithuania Ascending. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Smith, Jerry C., and William Urban, trans. The Livo- 256 Lithuania, Grand Duchy of nian Rhymed Chronicle. Chicago, IL: Lithuanian Research and Studies Center, 2001. Paul Milliman Lombard, Peter (c. 1095–1160) theologian and author Peter Lombard, best known for his Sententiae in quatuor libris distinctae (The Book of Sentences), was born in northern Italy between 1095 and 1110. Lombard began his formal education close to home at the Cathedral School of St. Mary’s in Novara and continued his studies in Lucca before heading to France in 1133. Three years later on the recommendation of St. Bernard, Lombard was sponsored for further studies in Paris. By 1144 Lombard was recognized throughout Paris as a prominent theologian. Records indicate that he was appointed canon of Notre Dame in 1145 and participated in the Council of Rheims in 1148. He became an archdeacon in 1156 and was consecrated bishop of Paris in 1159. His reign as bishop lasted no longer than a year, at which point Maurice de Sully replaced him. Most scholars believe this abrupt replacement marks his sudden death in July 1160. The public works of Peter Lombard include two biblical commentaries, sermons, and his monumental Book of Sentences. Lombard’s fi rst biblical commentary, Glossa in Psalmos (Commentary on the Psalms), was completed early in his career while he was studying in Rheims. The fi rst draft of his second commentary, Collectanea in Epistolas Beati Pauli (Commentary on the Pauline Epistles), was written a few years later. This document was used in his lectures at Notre Dame and his 1155 revisions incorporated the insights he gained from the comments and criticisms of his students. Lombard’s interest in theological instruction is best expressed in his masterpiece, The Book of Sentences. Written and revised at the end of Lombard’s life (1155– 58), it appeared at an important moment in Christian history. During the 12th century Christian theology was moving in the direction of the Scholasticism that would dominate the coming centuries. Books of sentences were written by numerous theologians and constitute a unique genre of theological literature. These works represent attempts to arrange, systematize, and synthesize the writings and opinions of the most important church fathers (hence the Latin sententia, which literally means “opinion”). Lombard and others believed these one-volume compilations would be more accessible to theology students. Lombard’s work was similar in function and style to the more famous Summa theologica, produced by Thomas Aquinas over a century later. Lombard’s Book of Sentences was originally divided into four books that were further divided into numerous small chapters. Between 1223 and 1227, however, Alexander of Hales grouped these small chapters into topical units that became the standard “distinctions” now associated with each book. In its present form, book one covers 48 distinctions related to the “mystery of the Trinity.” These distinctions synthesize positions on each person of the Trinity, including positions on God’s knowledge and will. Book two includes 44 distinctions on the doctrine of creation, with a special emphasis on the creation of woman and the doctrine of Original Sin. The nature of Christ, the Incarnation, and the virtues are addressed in the 40 distinctions of book three and book four addresses the sacraments in 50 distinctions. The content of Lombard’s Book of Sentences places him squarely within the Augustinian tradition. Of the many church fathers cited in The Book of Sentences, Augustine is referenced 680 times. By comparison, the next most referenced theologian (Ambrose) is quoted only 66 times. This heavy reliance on the writings of Augustine has led some scholars to argue that The Book of Sentences is nothing more than a 12th century reformulation of the ideas of this fourth-century master. Nonetheless his work had a profound infl uence on the history and development of Christian theology. The legacy of Peter Lombard and his Book of Sentences rests on the fact that this text served as the primary textbook in Christian theology for almost four centuries. Beginning with the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, every promising theologian had to respond to The Book of Sentences in the form of a lecture. These lectures were then published and included within the theological works of the various commentators. This process continued until Aquinas’s Summa theologica replaced The Book of Sentences in the 16th century. Thus almost every theologian who lived and studied between the 13th and 16th centuries produced an extended commentary on Lombard’s work. In fact, apart from the Bible, there has been no piece of Christian literature commented upon more often than Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences. Some of the most famous commentators include St. Bonaventure (1217–74), Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), Duns Scotus (1266–1308), and Martin Luther (1483–1564). See also Lateran Councils, Third and Fourth. Further reading: Bougerol, Jacques-Guy. “The Church Fathers and the Sentences of Peter Lombard.” In The Reception Lombard, Peter 257 of the Church Fathers in the West: From Carolingians to the Maurists. Ed. by Irena Backus. New York: E.J. Brill, 1997; Rosemann, Philipp W. Peter Lombard. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Elizabeth A. Barre Louis IX (1214–1270) king of France and saint Zealous and dashing, chauvinistic and impulsive are all terms that describe the reign of Louis IX, king of France. He showed heroic virtues of character, but he also seemed blind to the contributions of people who did not share his own values. He took action against corruption, but he also had complicated relations with Jews and Muslims. He wanted to imitate the poverty of Jesus by living as a monk but contented himself with making penitence and humility his aim in life. He engaged in self-fl agellation to curb his desires for food and sex and even gossip, and he wore a hair shirt under his royal robes. He was famous for showing mercy to his foes and generosity to the poor. He was the patron of French universities and several times invited Thomas Aquinas to dinner. When deathly ill in 1244, he promised God that he would fi ght a crusade if healed, and so he did in 1248. Captured in 1250 he was freed when he pledged to give up his conquest in Egypt and pay a huge ransom. He remained in Syria, attempted to draw the Mongols into the confl ict on the side of the Europeans, and tried to stir up divisions among Muslims in the Middle East. His conduct in battle refl ected his piety. He opened up investigations against the crimes of the resident crusaders and paid restitutions. He ordered that Muslims should be captured alive. He worked hard to convert Muslims and brought many of them back with him to France, where he supported them. He told his fi ghters that they would go to paradise if they died in battle because they were martyrs—a teaching that ironically has adherents among certain Muslims today. When he was not piously fi ghting on the battlefi eld, he was piously applying his morality to domestic affairs. He limited his own offi cials from encroaching unduly on the jurisdiction of the aristocracy. He set up a system of ombudsmen (enquêteurs) to hold nobles accountable for their conduct in local settings. In this way he tried to standardize government administration. He reformed the national currency and asserted the right of the state to regulate money. He allowed the judiciary a degree of independence, and the Parliament was formed. In France he was intolerant of Jews and heretics, especially those called the Cathars. He forbade usury, permitted no obscenity at court, ordered all blasphemers to be branded, and discouraged trial by combat. Against the Jews he was particularly prejudiced, allowing the public burning of the Talmud and ultimately requiring that Jews wear a red badge on their chest, eerily prescient of the Nazi practice of identifying French Jews by a yellow star. He embarked on another crusade in the late 1260s but was diverted to Tunis (North Africa), where he died in 1270. He was worn out by his self-imposed religious exercises, as well as by illness and dysentery. As he lay dying he summoned the Greek ambassadors and urged them to reconcile with the Church of Rome. His body was sent back to France. Wherever his body went, miracles were reported among the Christian faithful. He was promoted for canonization and named a saint in 1297. See also anti-Jewish pogroms; Crusades; Frankish tribe; heresies, pre-Reformation. Further reading: Connell, Evan S. Deus lo volt! Chronicle of the Crusades. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint, 2000; John of Joinville. Life of St. Louis. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1955. Mark F. Whitters

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

Landa, Diego de (1524–1579) Spanish Franciscan friar Among the first Spaniards to venture into the Maya heartland of the Yucatán Peninsula, the Franciscan friar Diego de Landa owes his fame, and infamy, to two distinct but related actions. His infamy rests on his systematic destruction of dozens of Maya texts (or codices) and thousands of Mayan idols in his crusade to extinguish idolatry and spread Christianity among the Maya in the 1560s—a crusade accompanied by tortures, burnings at the stake, and many other atrocities against the region’s indigenous inhabitants. Yet Landa was also among the earliest experts on Mayan language and culture, his Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (Account of the Things of Yucatán, 1556) representing a landmark document that provided an exceptionally vivid, detailed, and important description of Maya language and culture, and that proved key in the eventual decipherment of ancient Maya texts in the second half of the 20th century. Landa thus occupies a peculiar and highly ambiguous position as both the most important early destroyer and preserver of knowledge on the preconquest Maya of Yucatán. Born in Cifuentes, Guadalajara, Spain, on March 17, 1524, Landa entered the Franciscan monastery of San Juan de los Reyes in Toledo in 1540. Nine years later he journeyed to Yucatán as part of the broader missionary effort to convert the New World’s indigenous inhabitants to Christianity. His first several years were spent at the monastery at Izamal, learning Mayan, revising an existing grammar, and undertaking the routine duties of Franciscan missionaries: preaching, tending to the sick, performing sacraments. Growing restless, Landa sought and received permission to venture alone into the interior, where he spent many months wandering through large parts of the peninsula and acquiring intimate knowledge of Mayan language and culture. In 1553, he returned to the monastery at Izamal and supervised the construction of a permanent structure at the prominent Maya religious center. Eight years later, in 1561, the General Chapter of the Franciscans appointed the 37-year-old Landa as the region’s first provincial. By 1562, Landa had overseen the construction of 12 monasteries and the baptism of thousands of Maya, who Landa believed had abandoned their idols and embraced the Christian faith. In May 1562, a chance discovery of a cave near the village of Maní containing numerous idols and human skulls launched Landa on a crusade to extirpate, once and for all, idolatry among the natives. Employing a torture technique known as the garrucha, or hoist (in which the individual was bound at the wrists, hoisted into the air, and lashed, sometimes with large stones attached to the feet and hot wax hurled onto the body), the friars gained numerous “confessions” from the natives on their continuing adherence to non-Christian religious beliefs and practices. Soon afterward, on Sunday, July 12, 1562, the friars celebrated a massive auto-da-fé at Maní, in which great piles of idols (including at least 27 Maya manuscripts, or codices) were set to the torch, and various punishments meted out to offenders against the Christian faith, including floggings, incarceration, and fines. The inquisition continued for the next three months. Altogether an estimated 4,500 natives were tortured, with many hundreds left permanently disabled and 158 dying in consequence of the interrogations. Landa’s illegal and unauthorized excesses led to a prolonged power struggle with the region’s bishop, Francisco de Toral, whose authority he was charged with usurping. Ordered back to Spain, he was absolved by the Council of the Indies, and in 1573 he returned to Yucatán as second bishop of Mérida, in which capacity he served until his death on April 30, 1579. See also Inquisition, Spanish and Roman; Yucatán, conquest of the. Further reading: Clendinnen, Inga. Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatán, 1517–1570. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987; De Landa, Diego. Alfred M. Tozzer trans. Relacion de las cosas de Yucatán. Germantown, NY: Periodicals Service Company, 1974; ———. Yucatán before and after the Conquest. Mexico City: San Fernando, 1993. ———. Mayas de Yucatán. The Mayas of Yucatan. San Diego, CA: Fondo de Cultura Economica USA, 1997. Michael J. Schroeder Las Casas, Bartolomé de (c. 1474–1566) Spanish priest, bishop, historian One of the most influential figures in the history of Latin America, the Spanish priest and historian Bartolomé de Las Casas became known as the “Apostle of the Indians” for his impassioned and relentless moral condemnations of the excesses of violence and cruelty perpetrated by Spanish conquistadores and encomenderos against the native inhabitants of the Americas. His book, The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account, first published in 1552, caused a sensation across Spain and at the highest levels of church and state. Translated into many languages, it also formed an important component of the “Black Legend” of Spanish atrocities, a perspective that continues to hold enormous sway in considerations of the Spanish impact on the Americas. An indefatigable writer and activist, he continued writing, publishing, and speaking in favor of Indian rights from 1514 until his death in 1566. His writings were an important element of later Enlightenment discourses on the universality of human rights and continue to resonate among liberation theologians, human rights activists, and indigenous rights activists across Latin America more than 450 years after his “brief account” was first published. Born in Seville in 1484, son of a well-to-do merchant, Las Casas first came to the New World in 1502, at age 18, in the company of his father and some 2,500 other adventurers in the fleet of Nicolás de Ovando. Around 1506–07, he returned to Europe, was ordained a deacon in Rome, and returned to the Indies, where he was granted an encomienda. In 1512, he became the first priest ordained in the Americas. Over the next two years, an encomendero himself and eyewitness to the forced labor, enslavement, and violence that characterized the conquest of the Caribbean, he gradually came to an understanding of Spanish actions that diverged radically from that of the vast majority of his countrymen. His first public condemnation of Spanish excesses was in a Pentecost Sunday sermon in 1514. Freeing his own Indians, henceforth he preached incessantly about the evils of encomienda and other forms of forced labor and violence, making many enemies in the process. In 1520, King Charles granted him an official hearing to expound his views and defend himself against his many detractors. A handful of other ecclesiastics, most notably Antonio de Montesinos and Juan Quevedo, had been advancing similar arguments. The king sympathized with Las Casas’s position and decreed that the Indies would henceforth be ruled without recourse to force of arms—an unenforceable edict that was largely ignored. After a failed attempt to establish an economically self-sustaining Indian commune in Venezuela, in 1522 Las Casas became a Dominican monk. Over the next four decades, he wrote prolifically and became an obsessive collector of documents that later proved of inestimable value to scholars. He was instrumental in persuading the king to issue the New Laws of 1542, which placed severe restrictions on encomienda, sparked furious resistance by encomenderos across the empire, and were repealed in 1545–46. In 1544, he was appointed bishop of Chiapas (Mexico), where he continued his work on behalf of the Indians. Three years later, in response to mounting opposition to the radical bishop, the Council of the Indies recalled him to Spain. In 1550, came one of the most memorable and important public debates in early modern Europe, on the question of the morality of Spain’s actions in the Americas. Pitting two intellectual giants—Las Casas versus the eminent humanist Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, who argued from Aristotelian premises that Indi- 208 Las Casas, Bartolomé de ans were “natural slaves” and that Spanish actions were therefore just and appropriate—the great debate of Vallodolid failed to resolve the question, even though most council members sided with Las Casas. In the coming years, he wrote many other works of enduring historical importance, most notably his Brief Account (1552), Apologética historia, and Historia de las Indias (3 vols., first pub. 1875–76). He continued denouncing the institution of encomienda and Spanish cruelties and championing Indian rights until his death in July 1566. His body was interred at Our Lady of Atocha in Madrid. See also Dominicans in the Americas. Further reading: Las Casas, Bartolomé de. In Defense of the Indians, the Defense of the Most Reverend Lord, Don Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, of the Order of Preachers, Late Bishop of Chiapa, against the Persecutors and Slanderers of the Peoples of the New World Discovered across the Seas. Edited and translated by Stanford Poole. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974; Las Casas, Bartolomé de. The Devastation of the Indies. Herma Briffault, trans. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Michael J. Schroeder Lebna Dengel (1508–1540) Ethiopian ruler Emperor Lebna Dengel of Ethiopia, also known as Dawit II, or David II, was one of the celebrated Christian kings of Ethiopia. Lebna Dengel succeeded to the throne of Ethiopia at the age of 12, partly through the maneuverings of his grandmother, the empress Eleni. The empress was the daughter of King Hadiya, a Muslim, and she officially served as Lebna Dengel’s regent. Eleni had begun her rise to power when she became one of the four wives of Zara Yakob (1438–68) in 1445, thereby joining her prominent Muslim family with the Christian family of Zara Yakob. As one of the celebrated evangelizing emperors of Ethiopia, along with Amda Tseyon (1314–44) and Sayfa Arad (1344–72), Zara Yakob holds a unique place in Ethiopian history. When he built a new royal residence at Debre Berhan, Eleni, who had converted to Christianity, established a church on the grounds. Zara Yakob died after designating his young son Ba’eda Maryam (1468–78) as his heir, and Eleni became even more prominent in Ethiopian politics. Since his mother was dead, Ba’eda Maryam designated Eleni, to whom he was close, as the queen mother and chose her to serve as his regent. Eleni also served in this capacity during the troubled reign of her son Na’od (1494–1505), who had succeeded his half brother Ba’eda Maryam to the throne. When Na’od was killed in a battle against the Muslims, his son Lebna Dengel was only seven years old. Throughout much of the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Eleni served as the power behind the Ethiopian throne, essentially serving as the reigning monarch. As a devout and active Christian, Eleni is credited with founding the modern church of Ethiopia. Although her exact birth date is unknown, Eleni was born sometime in the 1430s and died in the early 1520s in her 90s. While Christians and Muslims coexisted in Ethiopia during Lebna Dengel’s reign, it was far from a peaceful relationship. In 1516, when the emir Mahfuz of Haran invaded the Ethiopian highlands, Lebna Dengel ambushed the invaders and continued to press his advantage by killing the emir and following them back to Haran, where he again attacked. Lebna Dengel returned to his home a hero, convinced that the Muslims would no longer threaten Ethiopian Christians. He was fatally wrong. Suspecting that a Muslim attack was imminent, Eleni sent out a plea for assistance from Portugal. Consequently, in 1520, a Portuguese expeditionary force arrived in Ethiopia, led by Dom Ridrigo da Lama. Despite the presence of the Portuguese in Ethiopia, in March 1529, Muslim forces under Ahmed Ibn Ghazi (c. 1507–43), popularly known as “the Gran,” triumphed over Lebna Dengel’s forces. By 1531, Muslim forces were in control of Ethiopia and remained so until 1543. During the Muslim invasion, Christian Ethiopians had been forcibly converted to the Muslim faith, to which they were forced to swear allegiance. In reality, Christian Ethiopians remained steadfast in their own faith. During the period of Muslim dominance, Emperor Lebna Dengel actively resisted all efforts to make him renounce his faith. When Ahmed ibn Ghazi demanded the hand of Lebna Dengel’s daughter in marriage, warning Lebna Dengel that he had no other course than to comply, the emperor summarily refused. Assuring the Gran that he would not allow his daughter to marry a nonbeliever, Lebna Dengel wrote to him that he was determined to retain his trust in the Lord rather than in the Gran. Afterward, Lebna Dengel’s faith was repeatedly tested as he was forced to flee for his life. For the rest of his life, he was often hungry, uncomfortable, and in physical danger. Lebna Dengel was still hiding from Muslim forces when he was killed in battle on September 2, 1540, near the monastery of Dabra Dam in Tigre. Subsequently, the tide turned for Christian Ethiopians. Lebna Dengel had appealed to Portugal for assistance in 1535, but Lebna Dengel 209 help did not arrive until after his death. The emperor Galawdewos (Claudius) succeeded to his father’s throne, and the Ethiopian Empire was restored with the help of the Portuguese who arrived in Ethiopia in 1541. This force of 400 Portuguese musketeers was led by Cristóvão da Gama, the son of the celebrated explorer Vasco da Gama. After Lebna Dengel’s death, his son Galawdewos, assisted by the Portuguese musketeers, led an attack in which the Gran was killed in 1543 in a battle near Lake Tana. Once the Muslims were ousted, the Christians performed a penitential and reinstatement ceremony and proclaimed the return of Christianity to Ethiopia. Although the Muslims had been ousted from Ethiopia, the Gran’s widow, Bati Del Wambara, continued raids on the Christians. Galawdewos was killed in battle in 1559, and the Muslims triumphantly displayed his head on a stake. Many of the Portuguese who survived the various battles remained in Ethiopia when the troops pulled out of Ethiopia in 1547. They were soon joined by a group of Jesuit missionaries. The presence of the Portuguese was evident in Ethiopia in a number of ways since the Portuguese government fully intended to retain a certain amount of power in the country The Portuguese taught the Ethiopian soldiers how to use firearms and converted a number of locals to Western Catholicism. By the mid-17th century, however, the Ethiopian government had expelled the Jesuits and denied other missionaries admission to the country. For the next two centuries, Ethiopia rejected all foreign overtures, preferring to exist in isolation. See also Loyola, Ignatius of, and the Society of Jesus. Further reading: Fage, J. D. A History of Africa. London: Hutchinson, 1988; Henze, Paul B. Layers of Time: A History of Ethiopia. New York: Palgrave, 2000; Ogot, B. A., ed. General History of Africa, Volume 5: Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999; Rey, C. F. The Romance of the Portuguese in Abyssinia. New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969. Elizabeth Purdy Le dynasty of Vietnam The Le dynasty ruled Vietnam from 1428 to 1788, the longest reign in Vietnam’s history. Le Loi, the founder of the Le dynasty, who ascended the throne as Le Thai To, is one of the most celebrated heroes in the country. He is credited with freeing the country from Chinese Ming domination in 1428. Le Loi was an aristocratic landowner. He was helped by Nguyen Trai, a Confucian statesman, poet, and military strategist. Vietnam would maintain peaceful relations with China as a vassal state for more than 300 years. Le Thanh Tong, who ruled Vietnam from 1460 to 1497, is the second-most significant ruler of the Le dynasty. He reorganized the administrative divisions of the country and upgraded the civil service system. He ordered a census of people and landholdings to be taken every six years, revised the tax system, and commissioned the writing of a national history. He completed the conquest of Champa in 1471 and quelled Lao-led insurrections in the western border area. He also ordered the formulation of the Hong Duc legal code, which was based on Chinese law but included distinctly Vietnamese features, such as recognition of the higher position of women. Under the new code, parental consent was not required for marriage, and daughters were granted equal inheritance rights with sons. He also initiated the construction and repair of granaries, dispatched his troops to rebuild irrigation works following floods, and provided medical aid during epidemics. He also encouraged and emphasized the Confucian examination system. Thus his reign was a golden age of literature and science. Le Thanh Tong presided over a great period of southward expansion. The don dien system of land settlement, borrowed from China, was used to develop territory wrested from Champa. Military colonies were established and soldiers and landless peasants moved to and cultivated a new area and served as a militia to defend it. After three years, the village was incorporated into the Vietnamese administrative system, a communal village meetinghouse (dinh) was built, and the workers were given an opportunity to share community land granted by the state to each village. The remainder of the land belonged to the state. As each area was cleared and a village established, the soldiers would move on to clear more land. This method contributed greatly to the success of Vietnam’s southward expansion and eased the land hunger of the peasants. As the Le dynasty declined, landlessness contributed to the turbulence as the peasants rose up in revolt. Under the Le dynasty there was a division between state and local responsibilities in government. The central government was responsible for military, judicial, and religious functions, while village authorities oversaw the construction of public works projects such as roads, dikes, and bridges. The autonomy enjoyed by the villages, however, contributed to the weakness of 210 Le dynasty of Vietnam the Vietnamese political system. If the dynasty could not protect a village, the villages would often support a rebel movement, which then had to provide security and to institutionalize their political power. Although it ensured the preservation of a sense of national and cultural identity, the strength of the villages was a factor contributing to the political instability of the society as it expanded southward. Beginning in 1527, Vietnam came under the control of two families, the Trinh, dominant in the northern, and the Nguyen in the southern part. Their military and political rivalry destabilized Le dynasty and brought its end in 1788. The new Nguyen dynasty ruled Vietnam into the modern period. Further reading: Haines, David W. “Reflections of Kinship and Society under Vietnam’s Le Dynasty.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (September 1984); Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History. New York: Viking Press, 1983; Nguyen-Van-Thai and Nguyen-Van-Mung. A Short History of Vietnam. Saigon, South Vietnam: 1958; Vinh, Pham Kim. Vietnam: A Comprehensive History. Fountain Valley, CA: Pham Kim Vinh Research Institute, 1992. Jitendra Uttam Leo X (1475–1521) pope Pope Leo X was born Giovanni de’ Medici in Florence on December 11, 1475, and died in Rome on December 1, 1521. He was the second son of Lorenzo the Magnificent. He became abbot of Font Douce in France in 1483, at the age of eight. Under political pressure by Lorenzo Giovanni, he was made a cardinal at age 13 by Pope Innocent VIII. His family’s political dealings caused friction in late 15th century Italy, and Giovanni fled to France at the election of Pope Alexander VI. He was captured by the French army at the defeat of the combined papal and Spanish armies in 1512 at Ravenna, probably for purposes of ransom. Giovanni was elected pope on February 21, 1513, at age 38, again because of the political pressures of his family on the college of cardinals. He lived a lavish life and expended the papal treasury within two years of his election; he also sold offices within the church to raise money to support the papacy. This practice, known as simony, led in part to the Reformation in Germany and other parts of Europe. The reformers argued against the selling of church offices and indulgences, practices taken up by Leo X and other popes and bishops. Leo never recognized the gravity of the Reformation, and the Counter-Reformation did not come about until after his death. He was a great patron of the arts and prepared a critical edition of the works of Dante. His greatest contribution was his support of the collection of historical Christian manuscripts and the merging of the Medici family library with the papal library. See also Medici 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. James Russell Leo Africanus (Hassan El Wazzan) (c. 1494–1554) Moroccan traveler Leo Africanus exemplified the positive cross-cultural exchanges between the Muslim and Christian worlds in the 15th and 16th centuries. Hassan El Wazzan was born circa 1494 in Granada during the last years of Muslim rule in Spain. His family, following the example of Boabdil, the last Muslim ruler of Granada, went into exile to Fez in present-day Morocco around 1502 after the final Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula by Christian forces. Leo Africanus received a classical Islamic education at the well-known Quarawin (Kairaouine) mosque and university in Fez. He worked for a short time in a maristan, a combination hospital and asylum for the mentally ill. While in his teens, he accompanied a relative on major diplomatic missions within Morocco and Africa. Leo Africanus lived during an age of political and cultural changes. He twice visited the famed city of Timbuktu, as well as much of the Sudan in western Africa (Mali and Mauritania), Constantinople, and Cairo, where he saw the defeat of the Mamluks by Ottoman forces. In 1518, the ship he was traveling on from Egypt to Tunis was captured by Portuguese Christian pirates (corsairs); however, owing to his learning and diplomatic experience he was not sold into slavery as a galley slave but was given to Pope Leo X as a gift. The pope made use of Leo Africanus’s knowledge of Arabic and the Muslim world in his dealings with Leo Africanus (Hassan El Wazzan) 211 other Mediterranean political powers. While under the patronage of the pope, Leo made what was probably a conversion of convenience to Christianity and was baptized Johannes Leo de Medici in Italy. His Latin/Hebrew/Arabic dictionary indicates the centrality and common use of these three languages by the educated elite in the 16th century. He also wrote a compiled description of 30 famous Arab thinkers, but the Cosmographia del’Africa (Description of Africa) written in a corrupt form of Italian from Arabic notes in 1526, is Leo’s most famous work. It was translated into English and published in London in 1600 and served as a major resource on African societies for hundreds of years. His descriptions, especially of Timbuktu, fueled Western imaginations about Africa while his life may have been a model for Shakespeare’s Othello. After the death of his patron Pope Leo X and the accession of Adrian VI in 1521, Leo fell out of favor. It is not known for certain but following the sack of Rome in 1524, Leo may have left Italy for North Africa, although it is likely he returned to Fez, where he died around 1554. See also Mamluk dynasties in Egypt; Ottoman Empire (1450–1750). Further reading: Leo Africanus, www.leoafricanus.com (cited February 14, 2006); Bovill, E. W. The Golden Trade of the Moors. London: Oxford University Press, 1958; Maalouf, Amin. Leo Africanus, Slugett, Peter, trans. New York: New Amsterdam Books, 1992. Janice J. Terry literature The literature of this period was characterized by several trends: The growing humanism of the Renaissance and Enlightenment led to a revival of classical themes and concepts as well as an interest in social commentary (and with it, the writing of a number of sophisticated satires), and the invention of the printing press made the distribution of literature easier. The combination of these factors with the exploration of the New World also led to a number of significant translations of the Bible, of which the Gutenberg Bible is the most famous. Johannes Gutenberg, who invented the movable type printing system in 1450, published his Bible in 1455. In Gutenberg’s case, no new translation was done—he used the Latin Vulgate text in use by the church. The most important translation of the Bible from the period is undoubtedly the King James Version, which represented one of the largest scholarly undertakings of the era. King James I of England proposed the new translation in order to settle disputes caused by extant versions, and to define a canonical text for the Church of England. The first King James Version (KJV) was produced 10 years later, in 1611, and revisions continued to be issued for the next century and a half; the KJV in circulation today is the 1769 edition. In 1516, the Dutch theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam published a new Latin translation of the Bible, correcting some of the translation errors of earlier editions. He had previously written The Praise of Folly, a satire of the corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Erasmus was a devout Catholic, dismayed when Folly became his most popular work, becoming part of the corpus of the Protestant Reformation. His friend Sir Thomas More, the Englishman, published Utopia alongside Erasmus’s Bible. Utopia was named for a fictional island, a “perfect society” (though not at all More’s ideal society) in which religious tolerance is the norm, divorce is easily obtained, women can become priests—a catalog of liberal reforms that More disapproved of and apparently wanted to cast in a comical light. Like Folly, it may have had an effect the author did not intend, as his work often seems reasonable. Other significant editions of the Bible included Martin Luther’s 1534 German translation, which helped to further and define the modern German language, and John Eliot’s 1663 translation into the Algonquin language, a Bible he used as a missionary in his efforts to convert the Native Americans in the Massachusetts area. John Bunyan wrote his allegorical novel The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come, published in 1679, while serving a prison sentence for holding religious services without the blessing of the Church of England. The novel presents in a plain style the journey of the protagonist, Christian, in the form of the city of Zion, and unlike much of the devotional literature that came before it, it reflects Bunyan’s strictly Protestant theology. Vernacular language in general became more and more popular across Europe. The Byzantine romances written in vernacular Greek continued to be popular in the 15th century as they had been in the previous two. Cretan literature developed shortly thereafter, characterized by the use of realistic dialogue that incorporated loan phrases from Latin and Italian into regional dialect. The best-known piece of literature from this Cretan renaissance is the Erotokritos of Vincenzo Cornaro. Published in the early 17th century, the Erotokritos 212 literature consists of just over ten thousand 15-syllable rhyming lines of verse, about the two lovers Erotokritos and Aretousa, princess of Athens. The use of modern language in a deft and structurally impressive poem helped to bring power and respect to Cretan literature. William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is of course the best known dramatist and poet of his era; in his lifetime he was respected but not revered (reverence was reserved for Edmund Spenser). His contributions continue to form a major part not only of Western literature but also of British national identity. His plays included comedies, tragedies, and histories, drawing on classical sources as well as older plays and (in the case of his histories) Thomas North’s 1579 translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Characteristic of Shakespeare’s work is the combination of great literary merit, complexity, and nuance with subject matter of broad appeal (sex, lust, seduction, murder, betrayal, and revenge). His later works, such as The Tempest, incorporate magic and the fantastic to a greater degree than the earlier, more realistic pieces. His reputation as the greatest Englishlanguage playwright began in the late 17th century, thanks to his compatibility with the romantics, and continues to this day. Close friends of Shakespeare included satirist Ben Jonson (whose comedies, unlike Shakespeare’s, were generally set in London) and dramatist Kit Marlowe, whose Tragical History of Dr. Faustus was the first dramatic adaptation of the Faust legend. While it is believed that Shakespeare came from a family of secret Catholics, Marlowe is often thought to have been an atheist. Edmund Spenser (1552–99) was the most respected poet of his day, the first master of modern English, whose Faerie Queene was not only a work of great art but an allegory about the Tudor dynasty. Spenser was outspoken in his political views and called for the outright destruction of Irish culture in order to bend the Irish to English will, going so far as to recommend forced famines to weaken the native spirit. Published in two parts at the start of the 17th century, Don Quixote remains the greatest published work of satire. Miguel Cervantes composed his lengthy farce about a knight whose reach exceeds his grasp in response to the Italian epic Orlando Furioso and other chivalric romances. But while working within the structure of the works he was spoofing, Cervantes managed to explore much deeper material, by showing the world from two perspectives: the fanciful Quixote’s, and that of the jaded Sancho Panza, Quixote’s devoted squire. So popular was Don Quixote that the book had the same influence on the Spanish language that Shakespeare had on English, and when an unauthorized sequel came out, Cervantes wrote his own to supplant it, much more serious in tone, almost a philosophical text, in which Quixote gradually recovers his senses and sees the world as it is rather than the outlandish world he perceived in the first part; as his sanity returns, he abandons the ideals of chivalry. The French author Molière (1622–73) was one of the masters of comedy in the Western tradition, incorporating satire, French high drama, and elements from the Italian commedia dell’arte. He brought a new realism to the stage that accounted for his overwhelming popularity, but also the condemnation of moral authorities, who were offended by his irreverence for the church and the earthiness of his material. In addition to Molière, the “big three” of French dramatists included his contemporaries Jean Racine and Pierre Corneille, both tragedians. Jonathan Swift (1667–1745) was the master of English-language satire, best known today for Gulliver’s Travels and his essay (often comically misunderstood by students) “A Modest Proposal.” A politically active Irishman, Swift was known for both his patriotism and his biting wit; as fanciful and fantastic as Gulliver is, much of it is political satire in the form of a parody of travel narrative. Another influence on Gulliver was Robinson Crusoe (1719), the shipwreck novel by spy and journalist Daniel Defoe. In his time, Defoe was just as well known for Moll Flanders, who commits virtually every sin known to Englishwomen at the time but is redeemed by the novel’s end. Alexander Pope (1688–1744), an English Catholic poet, found his fame early and quickly became known for his elegant parodies. The Rape of the Lock is a mock-heroic epic about a real-life quarrel between two Catholic families, over the unauthorized cutting of a lock of hair. Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, published in 1485, is the best-known and most influential piece of Arthurian literature. Malory compiled many French and English legends about Arthur and his supporting characters, including Lancelot (and his romance with Guinevere), the Knights of the Round Table, and the quest for the Holy Grail, popularizing these elements for centuries of readers to come. Parallel with the compilation and refinement of the Arthurian legends was the development of the Robin Hood legend. The anonymous manuscript A Gest of Robyn Hode dates to about 1475 and was the first attempt to weave into a single narrative the various literature 213 stories told about the English bandit hero. In these early stories, Robin is more like the pirate and highwayman protagonists of other stories: His enemies may be villainous, but not until generations later is there any mention of robbing the rich to give to the poor. This Robin fights with both sword and bow, and by the 16th century is often called Robert of Locksley. In that same century, Marian is introduced to the legends, and the context of Robin living under the rule of an unjust king while Richard fights in the Crusades is added. John Milton’s 1667 epic poem Paradise Lost has been an enormous influence on popular Christianity, casting Satan as the passionate protagonist in a struggle against a tyrannical god. Milton was raised a Puritan and dictated the work while blind from glaucoma, incorporating elements from Virgil and Spenser. Over the course of the poem, which portrays the fall of man, Milton explicitly seeks to “justifie the wayes of God to men.” The metaphysical poets, including John Donne and Andrew Marvell, were a group of British poets in the 17th century, most of them acquainted with each other, all of them possessed of a fascination with metaphysical concerns and striking metaphors. Their poetry appealed to the reader’s intellect and curiosity, rather than emotions or piety. Although it was not published until five years after his death in 1527, Florentine Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513. A wide-sweeping instructional text on how to govern, the political treatise outlined the ruthlessness and dedication an effective leader needed to possess; the leader is alleged to have been modeled after Cesare Borgia. China Yuan Hung-Tao (1568–1610) was the greatest of the three Yuan brothers who composed poetry during the Ming dynasty; his poetry, inspired by his wanderings with the Persian-Chinese philosopher Li Zhi, itself inspired the Gong’an school of poetry, which valued poetry of strong emotions and personal experience. His contemporary Tu Long (1542–1605) was a playwright who believed the same thing, eschewing the formalism of ancient dramatic traditions in favor of a more emotive focus. The third of the “four classical novels” of Chinese literature was written in this period: The anonymously written Journey to the West was published in the 1590s. Today it is best known to Westerners as Monkey, the story of a Buddhist pilgrimage to India, reflecting both Chinese folk religion and Buddhist beliefs in the path to enlightenment. The “monkey” of the Western title is Sun Wukong, a stone monkey martial artist who revolts against heaven and is trapped under a mountain by the Buddha for five centuries, before joining the pilgrimage and finding redemption along the way. The “fifth of the four,” Jin Ping Mei (The Plum in the Golden Vase), was also written in this period. The pseudonymous Lanling Xiaoxiao Sheng wrote this fulllength, sexually graphic novel sometime in the 16th century. Despite its explicit focus on sex, the novel explores at great length the nature of power and influence among Chinese women. Fengshen Bang, by Xu Zhonglin, in the 16th century, is a vast epic novel, a sort of Taoist fantasy incorporating fox spirits, talking animals, magic, and legend into the historical story of King Wu’s righteous rebellion against the despotic rule of Di Xin during the Shang dynasty. other literat ure Early colonial American literature largely consisted of recent histories and accounts of colonial life designed to attract settlers, such as John Smith’s True Relation of Such Occurrences and Accidents of Note as Happened in Virginia (1608), about Jamestown. The first Great Awakening, a nationwide revival of religious fervor, inspired the writings of Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards. In India, the henotheistic Bhakti movement inspired two schools of epic poetry: the Nirguna, who believed in a formless abstract God, and the Saguna, who believed in a more personal God. The Nirguna school tended to embrace secularism to a greater degree, and it was during this period that Hindu and Islamic elements began to be combined in Indian arts, especially poetry. To the south, in the Tamil country, religious and erotic poetry were popular, and toward the end of our period, an intellectual revival brought about many commentaries on ancient works and a strong interest in the Tamil language, along with its first dictionary (by Veeramaunivar, a missionary who also wrote a Tamil-Latin dictionary and an epic about the life of Jesus). Gosvami Tulsidas (1532–1623) was an Awadhi poet (Awadhi is one of the roots of the modern Hindi language), whose Ramacaritamanasa is an epic dedicated to Lord Rama, containing many of the proverbs that have remained popular in northern India. In Edo period Japan, Neo-Confucianism and the study of Western science as introduced by Dutch traders led to an increasingly secular view of the world. Chikamatsu Monzaemon (1653–1725) was the master of joruri, plays performed by puppets, and his Romeo and 214 literature Juliet–like “love-suicides” were among the most popular shows of the day. Later in his career he moved to Kabuki, or live actor theater. The haiku flourished at the hand of Matsuo Basho¯ (1644–94), who wrote crisp and clear verse. One of his best-known poems, composed in 1686, still stands as a popular example of the form, creating a vivid image in very few syllables: “The old pond / a frog jumps in — / water’s sound.” Further reading: Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003; Bobrick, Benson. The Making of the English Bible. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001; Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000; Nabokov, Vladimir. Lectures on Don Quixote. New York: Harvest Books, 1984; Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. London: HarperCollins, 2003; Wells, Stanley. Shakespeare and Co.: Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker, Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, and the Other Players in His Story. London: Pantheon, 2007; Ye, Yang. Vignettes from the Late Ming: A Hsiao-P’in Anthology. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999. Bill Kte’pi Locke, John (1632–1704) social and economic theorist Of all of the thinkers of modern times, few have had the wide impact of John Locke. Locke was born in Wrington, in Somerset, England, on August 29, 1632, during the political ferment that preceded the English Civil War (1642–49). At the time, Charles I was ruling without Parliament and exercising his firm belief in the doctrine of the divine right of kings. This basically held that the king, anointed with holy oil at his coronation, was the representative of God on Earth and thus could commit no wrong in his rule. The idea of limiting the power of the monarch would dominate England through the rest of the 17th century and form the seminal basis of much of Locke’s great work. Locke’s first significant educational experience was gained in the Westminster School, in 1646, while the English Civil War was at its height. Among noteworthy graduates of Westminster School were Jeremy Bentham (father of the utilitarian school of philosophy), Robert Cotton (founder of the Cottonian Library), England’s great poet John Dryden, and the historian Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. At Westminster, Locke was one of the gifted King’s Scholars. Locke was a junior student at Christ Church College, at Oxford University, in 1652, where he studied medicine, although he did not receive his bachelor’s in medicine until 1674. At Oxford, Locke became acquainted with the leading minds of his day, including Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Netwon. They left an indelible imprint upon Locke, who had found the medieval approach of studies of the ancient Greek philosophy Aristotle to be sterile and devoid of meaning for his times. Initially, there was little to indicate that Locke would make his greatest contribution to the emerging study of the philosophy of politics. In 1666, while at Oxford, Locke met Anthony Ashley Cooper, the later earl of Shaftesbury, certainly one of the boldest—and most unscrupulous—figures in the great age of English political intrigue. As Shaftesbury’s ambition launched him on what became a drive for power, Locke loyally followed his patron. Shaftesbury’s eventual fall from grace led Locke to return to complete his studies at Oxford for his bachelor’s degree in medicine. This was followed by a 15-month tour of France, which may have been occasioned in part by his close identification with the fallen earl. In Holland, Locke Locke, John 215 John Locke was instrumental in disseminating the idea that governments were beholden to their subjects. actively joined English exiles seeking to bring down King Charles and his brother. Charles’s agents infiltrated the group. When Charles II died in 1685, James II began a reign that would lead to the Glorious Revolution and the rule of William and Mary. It is likely that Locke, with his wide contacts, played a role in the intrigue that came to a climax upon William’s and Mary’s landing in England. The extent of Locke’s role in the machinations seems clear from the fact that he sailed on board the same ship with William and Mary as a close counselor. Back in England, Locke penned two works that would shape the future of philosophy and government. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), he posited that human beings gain almost all knowledge through experience. Consequently, Locke became one of the founders of the empirical school of knowledge. In helping to propagate the empirical view, he helped shape modern philosophy, removing forever the primacy of the teachings of Aristotle (against which he had rebelled years ago as a student at Oxford) and the medieval view of Thomas Aquinas. Locke also looked at the political turmoil of his era and attempted to apply his perspective of reason to government. He produced a clearly written document free from the use of biblical Scripture and frequent appeals to ancient guides like Aristotle. Locke’s views are related in Two Treatises on Government. In the First Treatise, he attacks the divine right of kings, which formed the basis of the governments of Charles I, and to a lesser extent that of his son, James II. The Second Treatise on Government would have important relevance to the American Revolution because America’s founders based much of their opposition to the tyranny of George III on the writings of Locke. Locke’s theory of government holds that man, once in a state of nature, where arbitrary force ruled, agreed to government as a way to seek protection for all from the willful use of force to dominate them, to replace the law of the jungle with the rule of law. With his Two Treatises on Government, Locke had used the political turmoil of his time to write a document that would transcend his time. No more would people accept willful, dictatorial governing. Instead, all administrations would govern under the revolutionary concept that their government was done by the consent of those they governed. Locke died on October 28, 1704, at Oates in the home of his friends, Sir Francis and Lady Masham. See also absolutism, European; Descartes, René; Hobbes, Thomas; Machiavelli, Niccolò. Further reading: Frasier, Antonia. Royal Charles. New York: Knopf, 1979; Gibson, J. Locke’s Theory of Knowledge and Its Historical Relations. London: Cambridge University Press, 1917; Gough, J. W. John Locke’s Political Philosophy. Fair Lawn, NJ: Oxford University Press, 1950; Kronenberger, Louis. Kings and Desperate Men: Life in Eighteenth-Century England. New York: Vintage Books, 1959; Prall, Stuart. The Bloodless Revolution: England, 1688. New York: Anchor, 1972. John Murphy Louis XI (1423–1483) king of France Louis XI, son of Charles VII, was a king of France from the Valois dynasty that had replaced the Capetian dynasty a century earlier. A schemer whose reputation in history was solidified when Sir Walter Scott condemned him a century later, Louis was nicknamed “the Spider King” for his weaving of webs of intrigue. At age 16, he tried to overthrow his father, Charles VII. The so-called Praguerie— Prague had been the site of similar uprisings— was the second such led by the duke of Bourbon, as the nobility sought to remove Charles from power and replace him with Louis, in response to Charles’s limits on noble power and reforms increasing the power of the monarchy. When the revolt failed, the major participants, including Louis, were forgiven after their surrender and submission. Six years later, Louis was sent to the province of Dauphine to govern and never saw his father again. They continued to plot against each other, and Charles even sent soldiers to retrieve Louis in 1456, but the prince was given shelter by Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy. Charles died five years later, and Louis succeeded him at the age of 38. Two Charleses—Louis’s brother the duke of Berry and Normandy, and Philip’s son Charles the Bold—led a revolution against Louis, each motivated by the desire to expedite his inheritances and seeking Louis’s removal in the name of breaking down the centralized authority of the French monarchy. Like Louis’s rebellion against his father, it was unsuccessful—and like the aftermath of that rebellion, the participants were forgiven after submitting to the king’s authority. Louis was the king of France during England’s War of the Roses, and since the rebel Charles the Bold was an ally of the Yorkists, Louis supported the Lancastrians, even manipulating events in order to force France’s Yorkist king Edward IV into exile. When Edward was restored to power, Louis prevented his planned retaliatory 216 Louis XI invasion of France by relinquishing any French claim to the English throne—which became another bone of contention between the king and the nobility. When Louis finally decisively defeated Charles, there were no pardons this time—the rebel was killed in battle and many of his noble supporters executed. Louis strengthened the monarchy, further limiting the powers of the nobility even as he granted more power to common-born merchants. Though he was poorly remembered, France prospered under him— prosperity it lost under the reign of his son, Charles VIII, a pleasant-natured man called Charles the Affable whose bumbling led to mounting debts, ill-considered wars, and treaties that put the kingdom at severe disadvantage as the Middle Ages waned. Further reading: Kendall, Paul Murray. Louis XI: The Universal Spider. London: Phoenix Press, 2001; Seward, Desmond. The Hundred-Years War: The English in France, 1337–1453. New York: Penguin, 1999; Scott, Walter, Sir. Quentin Durward. London: Collins, 1972. Bill Kte’pi Louis XIV (1638–1715) king of France Louis XIV was born in 1638, the son of King Louis XIII and his wife, Anne of Austria, from the Habsburg dynasty. Anne served as regent until Louis XIV began to govern in his own name in 1651. However, he was carefully guided by Cardinal Jules Mazarin, who had been the protégé of Cardinal Richelieu. Anne’s loveless marriage to Louis XIII fueled the rumor that Louis XIV’s father was actually Jules Mazarin, with whom the love-starved Anne shared a romance. As he settled into his reign, he increased the size of his bureaucracy. To fill expanding government positions, Louis XIV turned toward the middle class. These men, rather than owing their positions to ancestral power, were truly “the king’s men”; everything they gained was from the king, and they knew the king could take it away if he became displeased with their service. Louis XIV began construction outside Paris of his Palace of Versailles, which earned him the name “Sun King.” This not only was a reflection of his wealth and power, but also served to provide distance from the danger of rebellious Paris mobs. The palace itself and its grounds are huge. Under the scepter of the Sun King, Versailles became the cultural capital of Europe. Among many creative personalities stimulated by the cultural atmosphere was the playwright Molière, who, in October 1658, staged his first royal performance before the king. absolutist policies Louis XIV continued pursuing the absolutist policies of Richelieu and Mazarin. In domestic affairs, Jean- Baptiste Colbert assured a steady and reliable system of finance for the king, while overseeing spending by the various departments of the French government’s budgets. Colbert also became the father of the French navy, establishing a fleet of the best-designed warships in the world, a distinction they would hold until the Napoleonic Wars. What Colbert did for the French navy, Michel Le Tellier, and his son Michel Le Tellier, marquis de Louvois, did for the French army. The combined efforts of these men gave France military might. In one of the last state acts before he died, Mazarin negotiated peace between France and Habsburg Spain. However, eight years later, Louis XIV began a series of wars that consumed most of the rest of his reign, and Louis XIV 217 Perhaps the greatest French monarch, Louis XIV was a shrewd politician and diplomat. the royal treasury. When Philip IV of Spain died, territory in the Spanish Netherlands was ceded to Charles II of Spain and not to Louis XIV’s wife, Marie-Thérèse, who was Charles’s half sister. Louis XIV went to war in 1667 under a claim for the territory in the Spanish Netherlands. Once again, Spain and France were at war. The Dutch feared that Louis XIV could easily lay claim to Holland, because it too had once been ruled by Spain. In 1668, the Dutch formed the defensive Triple Alliance with England and Sweden against Louis XIV. But Charles II of England signed a separate peace with Louis XIV in 1670 guaranteeing Charles a secret subsidy, which freed him from dependence on the money annually voted him by the British parliament. In 1672, Louis XIV and Charles smashed into the Dutch United Provinces in one of the most devastating invasions in European history. Although Charles left the war in 1674, Louis XIV continued until 1678. He gained more territory in Spanish Netherlands and the strategic border region of the Franche-Comte but was still not satisfied with his territorial enlargement. edict of nantes revoked A decade of peace followed, in which Louis continued to assert his royal power both in France and in its colonies. In 1685, Louis revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had granted religious toleration to the Huguenots; this caused thousands of them to flee. Consequently, the Huguenots and their children became some of France’s most bitter enemies during the wars of the 18th century. Since Jansenist (a sect of the Roman Catholic Church) ideas bore some resemblance to Calvinism, Louis waged war against the Jansenists, even closing their spiritual center, the Abbey of Port-Royal. In 1688, the diplomatic balance of power in Europe suddenly shifted against Louis XIV. His ally, Charles II of England, had died in 1685 to be succeeded by his Catholic brother, James II. James’s religious stance brought on the Glorious Revolution of 1688. James was forced to flee, to be supplanted by his Protestant daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, the stadtholder of the Dutch Netherlands, who had come to power as a result of Louis’s Dutch War. William in the same year brought England into the League of Augsburg with the Dutch Netherlands, then known as the United Provinces, the Holy Roman Empire, and other European powers. With England now part of the coalition to frustrate Louis XIV’s European ambitions, the War of the Grand Alliance broke out in 1688; it would continue until 1697. A major series of battles was fought in Europe, but Louis XIV neglected to support James II fully when James II attempted to regain his English throne in 1688. A victory by James could have removed William from the throne, thus taking the most relentless adversary out of the coalition. However, the death of Charles II of Spain led Louis XIV to pursue seeing his grandson become King Philip V of Spain. Louis succeeded, only to wreck his diplomatic triumph by decreeing in 1701 that the future rights of Philip and his line were to go to the French Crown. The prospect of a French-Spanish union was something the other powers in Europe could never accept, and the War of the Spanish Succession broke out. The war devastated both Europe and the European colonies until 1713. Two years later, in September 1715, Louis XIV died. Although he had lived to see his ultimate diplomatic triumph, his Bourbon grandson Philip on the throne of Spain, the cost of his wars had inflicted such a toll that the royal treasury never really could recover before the French Revolution swept the monarchy away entirely in 1789. See also absolutism, European; Calvin, John; Fronde, the; justification by faith. Further reading: Ashley, Maurice. Louis XIV and the Greatness of France. New York: Free Press, 1965; Bernier, Olivier. Louis XIV: A Royal Life. New York: Doubleday, 1987; Durant, Will and Ariel. Story of Civilization, Vol VIII: Age of Louis XIV. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963; Havens, George. Age of Ideas: From Reaction to Revolution in Eighteenth Century France. New York: Free Press, 1969; Wolf, John B. Louis XIV. New York: W. W. Norton, 1968. John Murphy Louis XV (1710–1774) king of France When Louis XIV died in 1715, his great-grandson and heir Louis XV was five years old. The child king’s regent was Philippe II, duc d’Orléans, related to the royal Bourbon dynasty. Philippe II, in the period of French history often called “the Regency,” became known for a sensational lifestyle. The duke, famous for his sensual appetite, resigned his regency in 1723 largely because of the adverse publicity brought about by his lifestyle that was in effect funded by the French people. He died later that year. Philippe II’s downfall was followed by that of the financial network set up in France by the Scottish economist John Law. Philippe II had employed Law to help the French economy, which had suffered severely from the almost incessant wars of Louis XIV. Law’s note-issuing 218 Louis XV bank was a spectacular success, until it collapsed after a bank run in 1720, plunging France and Europe into a severe economic crisis that contributed to the French Revolution. John Law was exiled from France. Had Louis XV followed a more conservative fiscal policy, the revolution might have been delayed, or averted. However, with dire consequences, Louis XV’s reign was marked by the same disastrous spending on maintaining France’s position in Europe as the reign of Louis XIV. With the resignation of Orléans, catastrophe was averted by the appointment of Cardinal André-Hercule de Fleury, who essentially served as the king’s first minister. Louis XV left most of the government of France to Cardinal Fleury. Fleury stabilized France’s currency, built roads, expanded the reach of the merchant marine, and stimulated the economy. He set his sights on peace, although the War of the Polish Succession was unavoidable because of Louis XV’s marriage to Marie Leszcynska, a member of Polish royalty. Although Cardinal Fleury attempted to make the kingdom more fiscally responsible, the dynastic wars of Europe continued to drain the French treasury, as they had during the reign of King Louis XIV. Indeed, during the reign of King Louis XV, two of the largest wars in French history, the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years’ War, took place. These wars would be global conflicts, because not only were France and England combatants in Europe, but the fighting spread to overseas colonies. The War of the Austrian Succession highlighted the rise of Maurice de Saxe to French command; he had joined the French army in 1720. De Saxe was a son of King Augustus II of Poland. The era of Maurice de Saxe marked the apogee of the reign of King Louis XV. With the death of Cardinal Fleury during the war in 1743, Louis XV lost his most important minister. He sought to govern on his own but lacked the abilities to do so. Too much influence was given to his mistresses, Madame de Pompadour and Madame du Barry. At the same time, unchecked by the king, corruption worked to sap the strength and morale of the army. In 1756, in a move at least partly attributed to Madame de Pompadour’s influence, Louis XV embarked on what has become known as the diplomatic revolution of the 18th century. Orchestrated by Maria Theresa’s foreign minister von Kaunitz, the diplomatic revolution saw the alliance of France, the Holy Roman Empire (of which Austria-Hungary was the most important part), and Russia. With Frederick the Great of Prussia occupied with the Russians and Austrians, in the fall of 1757, Louis XV sent a French army under Marshal Soubise to attack Frederick from the rear. Unfortunately, Soubise, a product of the favoritism now governing France, proved no match for Frederick. Then on August 1, 1759, a French army commanded by the marquis de Contades suffered a serious defeat at the hands of a British, Hanoverian, and Prussian army led by Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick. Contades was only saved a near-rout like Soubise’s because Sir George Sackville, through cowardice or incompetence, refused to charge the enemy with his cavalry squadrons. While the war was going badly for Louis XV in Europe, it was worse overseas. British prime minister William Pitt had set as his goal the destruction of France’s colonies. The war began in 1754 with a skirmish in North America where George Washington made his first appearance in command against forces from New France (Canada). In North America, the conflict became known as the French and Indian wars. In 1760 the French finally surrendered to Jeffrey, Lord Amherst at Montreal. In India, the British East India Company, supported by regular British troops, fought its own struggle with the French Compangnie des Indes, buttressed by French troops sent from France to support it. Yet, in India too, the balance of power tipped in favor of the British. In February 1763, the Seven Years’ War was brought to an end for England and France by the Treaty of Paris, by which France relinquished its claims on New France. France, however, retained its islands in the French West Indies which, because of their great production of sugar, the French government valued more than New France. The end of the war found the reputation of French arms, raised to new heights by Maurice de Saxe, at its lowest point in the century. Financially, the years of war were a calamity for France. Efforts to reform the financial system of France proved frustrated by opposition, and Louis XV lacked the personal determination to force them through opposition. Although the last decade of Louis XV’s reign passed in relative peace, it was only the quiet before the storm. Only 15 years after his death, the French Revolution destroyed the monarchy. See also George II. Further reading: Anderson, M. S. Europe in the Eighteenth Century 1713–1789. General History of Europe Series. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2000; Cobban, Alfred. A History of Modern France, Vol. 1, Old Regime and Revolution 1715–1799. New York: Penguin, 1991; Dorn, Walter L. Competition for Empire, 1740–1763. New York: Harper, 1940; Furneaux, Rupert. The Seven Years’ War. London: Hart-Davis MacGibbon, 1973; Havens, George. Age of Louis XV 219 Ideas: From Reaction to Revolution in Eighteenth Century France. New York: Free Press, 1969; White, Jon Manchip. Marshal of France: The Life and Times of Maurice, Comte de Saxe, 1696–1750. New York: Rand McNally, 1962. John Murphy Loyola, Ignatius of, and the Society of Jesus (1491–1556) religious leader and organization Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) and author of the spiritual classic The Spiritual Exercises, holds a place among the most influential people of his time. Such a claim says a great deal about his impact, for Loyola lived in an age of many powerful and influential personalities. Ignatius was born one year before Columbus discovered America into a noble family in the Basque country of northern Spain. The youngest of 13 children, he dreamed of making his fame and fortune as a valiant knight in the service of his king, and he pursued the swashbuckling life of a soldier until he reached the age of 30. Then, in May of 1591, he found himself heading a small garrison of Spanish troops in the fortress of Pamplona when it was attacked by a vastly superior French army. Although the city’s leaders wished to surrender without a fight, the zealous Loyola convinced them to defend their walls, and he bravely rallied his troops in battle until a French cannonball shattered his right leg. Pamplona promptly fell to the French, and Ignatius was transported by stretcher to his family’s castle at Loyola, where he endured excruciating operations aimed at repairing and straightening his leg. He nearly died under the surgeon’s knife, and his recovery process was long and slow. During his lengthy recuperation, a profound change took place in him that would totally alter the course of his life. As he lay in bed day after day, he grew extremely bored and asked for something to read. He was an avid reader of the stories of gallant knights, who performed daring deeds in the service of their lady, and he craved such books to help him pass the time. But in his family’s castle, there was only a book on the life of Jesus Christ, and another on the lives of the saints. In his desperation for something to occupy his mind, he would read from these books as he lay in bed and then daydream about knightly exploits. Yet, the more he read about Christ and the saints, the more impressed he became by their heroic virtue and goodness. His daydreams began to alternate: At times he would envision himself as a valorous knight of the king of Spain; at other times, he would dream of becoming “a knight of Christ,” and of heroically following Jesus Christ as the great saints of old had done. After a period of serious deliberation, he became utterly convinced that he must leave behind his former way of life and dedicate himself completely to the cause of Christ. A Hermit, Pilgrim, and Student Over the following 13 years, Ignatius investigated various ways of responding to his new calling. His early attempts were not highly successful. First, he lived for many months as a poor hermit, begging for his food and spending his days in prayer. Then he took ship and went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, hoping to offer himself in lifelong service there. When he was denied permission to remain permanently in the Holy Land, he returned to Spain and began a long process of study, which would take him from Barcelona, to the Spanish university town of Alcalá, and ultimately to the University of Paris, where he studied theology and was ordained a Catholic priest. During his years at the University of Paris, by force of his virtuous character, his strength of personality, and his other powerful leadership qualities, he gathered around himself a group of extremely talented younger men from Spain, France, and Portugal, who were also studying for the priesthood. He led each of them through The Spiritual Exercises, his life-changing 30-day retreat, which he had by that time developed. As their numbers and their friendship grew, this impressive band of men dreamed of doing something together in the service of God. Founding of the Jesuits In August 1534, Ignatius of Loyola and several others joined together in Paris to make promises to remain permanently single for God (chastity) and to live in poverty, in order to place their lives as completely as possible at the service of God. Their first ambition was to sail together to the Holy Land, and to preach the Gospel of Christ in Jerusalem. When this proved impossible, they journeyed to Rome and placed themselves at the disposal of the pope, ready to serve in whatever way he should direct. The small group continued to grow, attracting many other young and gifted men who were inspired by the lives of Ignatius and his companions, and by the scope of their vision. Although numerous religious orders of men already existed in the Roman Catholic Church, Ignatius’s company was utterly new: a bold and dynamic missionary band of highly gifted men who were prepared to go anywhere in the world, and 22 0 Loyola, Ignatius of, and the Society of Jesus to do anything that would advance the cause of Christ. In 1540 the new order, called the Society of Jesus, was officially established by Pope Paul III. In the following year, Ignatius was elected the first superior (“general”), and he remained in that role until his death 15 years later, in 1556. Throughout these years, Ignatius remained in Rome, crafting the Constitutions of his order and directing his far-flung society through his extensive correspondence. A gifted leader of men and an able administrator, he was also revered by his men for his personal holiness and his profound life of prayer. Under his direction, the Society of Jesus became a powerful force in the Counter-Reformation, exercising enormous impact through their dominance in the field of education, through their popular preaching and their theological disputations, and through their worldwide missionary activity. The order continued to grow rapidly throughout his life, and by the time of his death numbered nearly 1,000 men. Society of Jesus The Jesuit order exploded onto the European scene in the decades following their official establishment in 1540. Their growth in numbers was rapid, and within 25 years after Ignatius’s death, 5,000 Jesuits were at work all over the world. They played a major role in educating the youth of upper-class European society and had established nearly 150 colleges by 1580. As time went on, they enjoyed enormous popular appeal through their creative use of preaching, drama, music, extensive use of the recently invented printing press, and promotion of baroque art and architecture. In the highest echelons of society, Jesuits became confessors and counselors to many of Europe’s kings and queens and leading statesmen. Over the next 200 years, hundreds of intrepid Jesuit missionaries followed in the footsteps of the first Jesuit foreign missionary, Francis Xavier. They journeyed from Europe to many parts of North and South America, Africa, and Asia. Many of them would die on the journey itself, the hazards and hardships of sea travel at that time being so great. Many others would die a martyr’s death in the land of their mission. Jesuits were known to be outstanding in developing creative missionary methods for different cultural settings, and in respecting the indigenous cultures within which they sought to adapt the preaching of the Gospel. The work of such men as Valignano in Japan, Matteo Ricci in China, Di Nobili in India, and the Jesuit reductions in Paraguay continue to be studied today by missionaries seeking to adapt the Gospel effectively to new cultures with respect and sensitivity. All was not smooth sailing for the Society of Jesus, however. Their unprecedented success in so many of their endeavors, their massive influence at all levels of society, and serious doubts that were raised about some of their methods all contributed to making the Jesuits a storm center of controversy. Although they won many influential friends over the years, they also accumulated a long list of powerful and dedicated enemies, who considered them a dangerous force to be eliminated. Some of their implacable foes came from within the Catholic Church itself, others from among the Protestants of Europe, and many more from among Europe’s Enlightenment intellectuals and rulers. By the mid-1700s, fierce opposition to the activity and influence of the Jesuits had coalesced into strong pressure from different quarters for the complete suppression of the order. The society was first driven out of Portugal, then out of France and Spain, and finally in 1773, the pope was prevailed upon to suppress the entire order. The suppression was not lifted by Rome until 40 years later, in 1814. The restored Society of Jesus flourished in many parts of the world in the 19th and 20th centuries, including in the United States, and became especially well-known for its excellent high schools and universities. Today the Society of Jesus ranks as the largest Catholic religious order in the world, with more than 20,000 members serving in 112 nations on six of the world’s continents. Further reading: Bangert, William V., S. J. A History of the Society of Jesus, 2nd edition, revised and updated. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1986; Broderick, James, S.J. The Origin of the Jesuits. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1986; Caraman, Philip. Ignatius Loyola: A Biography of the Founder of the Jesuits. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1990; Loyola, Ignatius, St. The Autobiography of St. Ignatius Loyola, with Related Documents. J. F. O’Callaghan, trans. New York: Fordham University Press, 1993; O’Malley, John W., S.J. The First Jesuits. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993. John H. Keating Luba-Lunda The Luba-Lunda states, in what is now the southeast of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Central Africa, were a network of kingdoms that lasted from Luba-Lunda 22 1 the 15th to the 19th centuries c.e. The Luba culture had emerged a millennium earlier, a civilization that soon began working in iron and dam construction. The local conditions—marshy wetlands that required drainage and provided a surplus of fish—encouraged large, stable communities and communal labor over individual self-sufficiency. In time, trade relations and intermarriages between smaller communities led to a unified Luba state around the end of the 15th century c.e., by which time the Luba people were widely respected for the sophistication of their art and the quality of their ironwork, especially their axes and spears. Luba kings ruled by right of descent from Kalala Ilunga, a mythic cultural hero who had invented much of Luba culture. The Luba king was the head of a large hierarchy of officials at the state and local levels, who paid him tribute he redistributed as rewards for loyalty. Prominent in this hierarchy were the Bambudye, the “memory men” (though women were included) who maintained oral histories of the Luba kings and their deeds. As the Egyptian pharaohs and rulers in much of the ancient and antique world, Luba kings were revered as deities upon death, and these oral histories are comparable to Christian “saints’ lives” and other religious biographies. The Luba system of divine kingship spread to other nearby cultures, notably including the Lunda, a strong military force in the region who increased their power by intermarrying their royal family with the Luba’s and colonizing large parts of central Africa before European colonization arrested their expansion. The Luba kingdom itself extended its power and resources to include not only the copper mines of communities who had once been only trade partners, but New World goods from the Portuguese colonists (in exchange for ivory and slaves, among other commodities), leading to a centuries-long period of growth. The Lunda continued to self-govern, though were closely aligned with the Luba; they soon controlled much of the copper trade. By the end of the 19th century, the Luba and Lunda states were in decline. Prosperity and intermarriage had encouraged infighting in periods when royal succession was not clear-cut; neighboring tribes had acquired firearms, a significant military advantage to which neither the Luba nor the militarily superior Lunda had any recourse except to acquire guns of their own, which they did by devoting more efforts to the slave trade. But the slave trade itself was dwindling, and this proved not only disruptive to the economy and political balance, but also ultimately ineffective. Belgian colonists took control over the region, which King Leopold II called the Congo Free State. The Luba rebelled several times, but fruitlessly, and many were sent into forced labor in the copper mines. The Luba and Lunda (and their other client tribes) persist today as ethnic groups, but their culture has been absorbed into that of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. See also Kongo kingdom of Africa. Further reading: Edgerton, Robert. The Troubled Heart of Africa: A History of the Congo. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002; Gondola, Didier. The History of Congo. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002; Harris, Joseph E. Africans and Their History. New York: Meridian, 1998; Mukenge, Tshilemalema. Culture and Customs of the Congo. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001. Bill Kte’pi Luther, Martin (1483–1546) religious reformer and leader Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation in 1517 when he nailed his 95 Theses on the castle church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther was a controversial figure in his day, with great friends and foes during a period of tumult in the Roman Catholic Church. Born in 1483, Luther was the son of a reasonably prosperous copper miner. An intelligent boy, he was sent away to school by his father, who hoped he would be a lawyer. That was not to be. At the end of his university studies at Erfurt in 1505, Luther was caught in a terrible thunderstorm, where he prayed to St. Anne for deliverance, vowing to become a monk. Soon after that, he made good on his promise and entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt. The monastic life at that time varied greatly, depending on the monastery. The Augustinian monks were quite strict, with fasting and a rigorous schedule of prayer, study, and work. Luther was ordained a Catholic priest in 1507 and completed his doctoral studies in 1512. He then was assigned by his superior to teach biblical studies at the University of Wittenberg in Germany. Preparing his lectures on the Bible (especially the books of Romans and Galatians), he became increasingly dissatisfied with the current practice of 222 Luther, Martin the church compared to what he saw in the Bible. His lectures were quite popular among the students, and he drew together a circle of other professors around him for discussion. In 1517, he decided to tackle the issue of the sale of indulgences (a document granting a person exemption from the penalty for his or her sins) by writing a document that contained 95 statements (or theses) that argued against the practice of the sale of indulgences. Many knew that Prince Albert of Germany had arranged with Pope Leo X to turn over half of the proceeds from the sale of indulgences to the pope, who needed money to finish building St. Peter’s Basilica, and turning the rest over to bankers who had funded Prince Albert’s purchase of bishoprics. But it was the shameless manner in which the indulgences were sold that was too much for Luther. Freedom from the penalty of even the gravest sins was promised by the Dominican monk Tetzel as he sold the indulgences in the neighboring areas. At that time, Luther did not imagine the storm of controversy that his few pages would cause. Because of the recently invented movable type printing press, within a few short months, Luther’s 95 Theses were printed and sent out all over western Europe. The Catholic Church’s response was first to wait and see whether the controversy would die down. When it did not, Luther was approached by high-ranking church officials who asked him to retract or recant his statements. Finally in 1521, Luther was summoned before the emperor at the Diet of Worms. There, with his books and pamphlets in front of him, he was asked to recant his writings. His response, considered apocryphal by some, “Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear and distinct grounds and reasoning . . . then I cannot and will not recant, because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen.” Luther knew that his statements would probably cause his expulsion (excommunication) from the Roman Catholic Church and that he would have to flee for his life. Fortunately for Luther, a sympathetic German prince, Frederick the Wise, “kidnapped” him and hid him in the Wartburg castle till the storm blew over. Because of the support of Frederick and other German princes, the “Lutheran” movement grew in strength over the next 10 years. Excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, Luther and his followers took over the churches in the areas in Germany that had sympathetic princes. Luther continued to teach and write at the University of Wittenberg. He married a former nun, Katherina von Bora, in 1525 and had six children. Luther died in 1546. Luther wrote a great many books and shorter articles. (There are more than 100 volumes of his works.) These include Luther’s Small Catechism, Luther’s Large Catechism, The Bondage of the Will, and On the Freedom of a Christian. He also translated the Bible into German— prior to this time it was only available in Latin. Luther was an outspoken man, tending to make outrageous statements, especially at the dinner table (e.g., “When I die I want to be a ghost and pester the bishops, priests, and godless monks so that they have more trouble with a dead Luther than they could have had before with a thousand living ones”). Some controversy has arisen in more recent years about Luther’s statements in his later years against the Jews. These were not unusual for their time but are seen by Lutherans today as very unfortunate. Many people try to simplify the Reformation as if Martin Luther appeared out of nowhere with a strident call for reform. This was not the case. There were many calls for reform and many attempts at it during the previous 100 years. Luther was also heavily influenced by the humanists, especially Erasmus of Rotterdam, who were arguing for an intellectual reform, returning to the original Greek and Hebrew sources for both philosophical and Christian thought. “Luther hatched the egg that Erasmus laid” is a common phrase describing the intellectual development of Luther. Luther was a somewhat reluctant, but certainly courageous leader and thinker during a time of great change in the church and society. Luther, Martin 223 Martin Luther burns the papal bull of excommunication— the document that expelled Luther from the Catholic Church. See also Charles V; Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Henry viii ; justification by faith; Melancthon, Philip. Futher reading: Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Pierce and Smith Publishing, 1950; Kittleson, James M. Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986; Schaff, Phillip, the Reverend, and Johann Jakob Herzog. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1984. Bruce Franson

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

labor unions and labor movements in the United States From the encyclopedic treatment of the labor movement from the 1910s–1930s at the John R. Commons School, University of Wisconsin, to the emergence of a new labor history in the 1960s and after, scholarly inquiry into the history of labor unions and working people’s movements in the United States has made up a major field of study. The new republic’s founding principle of private property created a situation in which people who lacked land or other material resources to earn their subsistence were compelled to sell their labor in the marketplace and were at a comparative disadvantage with the owners of capital. In order to enhance their bargaining power vis-à-vis business owners, working people organized into various types of associations and unions, a process that went through a number of distinct phases corresponding to larger changes in industry, transport, and markets, in a national economy marked by frequent cycles of boom and bust, which comprises a major chapter in U.S. history. early years In the early republic and antebellum periods, most manufacturing was done by artisans in small, often family-owned and -operated shops in cities, towns, and rural areas. Until the 1840s wage labor was rare. The vast majority of the nation’s inhabitants made their living by the soil, while slavery, indentured servitude, apprenticeship, household production, and other forms of bound labor predominated. Important exceptions were the shoe and textile industries in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania during the first Industrial Revolution in the 1810s and 1820s, in which numerous large factories employing a permanent wage labor force first emerged in North America. An example is the textile mills of Lowell, Massachusetts, based on the paternalistic Waltham System, in which hundreds of mostly young farm women labored for upward of 70 hours per week under highly supervised conditions, mainly to supplement family income. Because of the small scale of most manufacturing enterprises during this period, the most successful organizing efforts by working people resulted in the formation of relatively small and localized trade and craft unions and associations, which often melded with fraternal societies and benevolent organizations. By the late 1820s the growth of the factory system, cities, markets, and the expanding scale of many workshops prompted the formation of the nation’s first labor movement. A commonly cited touchstone marking the emergence of a self-conscious working class was the establishment of the Mechanics’ Union of Trade Associations of Philadelphia in 1827, the nation’s first citywide confederation of local trade unions. In the same year in Philadelphia the Working Men’s Party was founded, the nation’s first political party organized specifically to defend and advance the interests of working people. Similar associations and parties were soon established in New York, Boston, and elsewhere. L 215 The period from the late 1820s to the mid-1830s saw a fl ourishing of workers’ associations, trade unions, and workers’ political parties in major cities of the Northeast, symbolized by the formation of the General Trades’ Union of New York in 1833. Inspired by 18thcentury republicanism, evangelical Christianity, broader reformist impulses, and local traditions of autonomy, one of the major goals of these early organizing efforts was to establish a 10-hour workday. Most such efforts failed, as by law and custom employers enjoyed the right to dictate the terms of labor, including the length of the workday. The issue came to a head in 1835, which saw the fi rst general strike in U.S. history, as carpenters, millhands, stonecutters, hatters, shoemakers, horseshoers, and members of many other trades, male and female, walked off the job, set up picket lines, staged street demonstrations, and assembled in town halls and large open-air gatherings in cities and towns across the Northeast. The spate of organizing, striking, and picketing continued into 1836, a year that saw more than a dozen new unions established in major U.S. cities. EARLY ORGANIZATION The surge of labor activism came to an abrupt halt with the panic of 1837, which sent the national economy into a nosedive and threw thousands out of work. The economic depression lasted seven years, severely weakening the bargaining power of workers’ organizations. Meanwhile major changes were transforming the face of the nation. Waves of immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and elsewhere in Europe poured into the major cities of the eastern seaboard in the 1840s and 1850s, many heading west with the promise of ample cheap land. The transportation revolution went hand-in-hand with the market revolution, as canals, roads, and railroads made geographic mobility a characteristic feature of the young republic’s burgeoning population. Ethnic, racial, and religious divisions compounded the diffi culties of forging viable workers’ political parties or labor unions, as did a surge in antiimmigrant (or nativist) sentiment among the American-born. In the late 1840s, exemplifying the reformist impulse sweeping through much of the country in the preceding two decades, a resurgent labor movement coalesced under the banner of national reform, brainchild of former trade unionist George Henry Evans, who built on Jeffersonian agrarianism to envision a nation of small farmers supplied with land by the federal government. During the same period, industrial congresses formed in many of the nation’s major cities, exemplifi ed by the National Typographical Union, formed in 1852 and arguably the country’s fi rst national trade union. A spurt of organizing in the early 1850s created national unions of upholsterers, railroad engineers, blacksmiths, and other tradesmen. The momentum proved hard to sustain, however. Economic downturns in 1854 and 1857, combined with westward expansion and torrents of new immigrants—2 million in the 1850s alone— intensifi ed nativist sentiments, fragmenting working people by ethnicity, religion, and politics, as well as by region. Still, these years saw major organizing efforts and several important strikes, most notably the Great Strike of 1860, sparked by shoemakers in Lynn, Massachusetts, which spread throughout much of the Northeast, in which some 20,000 workers participated and women played a major role. The American Civil War transformed the nation’s economy in important ways and, with it, the relations among labor, capital, and the state. The state got bigger; big business got bigger; and organized labor struggled to keep up. At one level, the war created the nation’s fi rst military-industrial complex. Wartime production surged, as ever-larger factories, North and South, churned out staggering quantities of munitions, uniforms, and sundry other items consumed in the confl ict. Federal government spending more than quadrupled from 1860 to 1870 (from $72 to $329 million), the vast bulk due to defi cit spending, via bonds, to fi nance the war, expanding the stock market and providing a tremendous boost to the nation’s banks and fi nance capital. Dramatically expanding the size and scope of the federal government, the war also expanded and integrated the nation’s markets and its transport and communication infrastructure. In the North, full employment strengthened workers’ bargaining power and heightened worker militancy, leading to a surge in labor organizing, with some 300 unions representing 61 trades founded during the war. By war’s end, some 200,000 workers belonged to hundreds of trade unions, some of them national and many others aspiring to be. ORGANIZED LABOR Organized labor came of age during the Second Industrial Revolution after the Civil War, which reached its height from the 1870s to the 1890s, fueled by large concentrations of fi nance capital, rapidly expanding markets, a host of technological innovations, and torrents of immigrants pouring in from Europe and Canada and, in the West, from Asia. The growth of major industries 216 labor unions and labor movements in the United States in railroads, steel, and manufacturing and the expansion of consumer goods and labor markets were accompanied by the formation of thousands of local unions and numerous nationwide organizations that competed for the allegiance of the country’s rapidly growing industrial labor force. The National Labor Union, founded in 1866, an umbrella organization of trade unionists, agitated for the eight-hour workday and other reforms but never fully got off the ground. More enduring in its impact was the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, founded in 1869, which reached the height of its infl uence in the mid- 1880s under Terence Powderly, with a membership of around 750,000 and lodges in most every county in the nation. More inclusive than other labor associations, the Knights exalted the “nobility of toil” and dignity of labor, opening its doors to all who worked, regardless of race, gender, or social class. Championing the eighthour day, the abolition of child labor, and the creation of a “cooperative commonwealth” that would replace “wage slavery,” the organization under Powderly’s idiosyncratic and autocratic rule disappeared by the early 1890s, but not before exercising an important infl uence on a generation of labor activists and organizers. UNIONS AND STRIKES With the economic depression of 1873–79 following the panic of 1873, unemployment skyrocketed, leading to a spate of labor organizing and activism, including the Long Strike of coal miners in Pennsylvania in 1874–75. These events were to prelude one of the signal events in U.S. labor history, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, in which thousands of railroad workers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio put down their tools and disrupted rail traffi c to protest a series of pay cuts. The protest, fueled by antimonopoly outrage among broad swaths of the populace, sparked a general strike in major industries that spread rapidly as far west as Chicago and St. Louis and at its height included more than 100,000 workers. Unplanned, unorganized, and without national leadership, the Great Strike lasted more than six weeks and was put down by federal troops at the cost of over 100 workers’ lives. The Great Railroad Strike of 1877, which made headlines across much of Europe as well as the United States, exposed the deepening divisions between working people and big business, as well as the federal government’s partisan role on the side of business. In the two decades to follow, in what is commonly known as Labor’s Great Upheaval, strikes, labor protests, and labor organizing mushroomed across the country and in all major industries, especially railroads, steel, and coal mining, but also among slate quarrymen, garment workers, and hundreds of other trades and crafts. The 1880s alone saw more than 10,000 strikes and lockouts; in 1886–87, union membership reached nearly 1 million. THE AFL AND THE UMWA Emblematic of this upsurge in labor activism was the formation of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) in 1886, led by Samuel Gompers, an outgrowth of the Federation of Organized Trade and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada, founded in 1881. An umbrella organization representing hundreds of individual trade and craft unions, the AFL was dedicated to “pure and simple unionism” among skilled tradesmen and focused mainly on “bread and butter” issues of wages, working conditions, and the length of the workday. Spearheaded by the AFL and supported by the Knights of Labor and other organizations, in 1886 upwards of 700,000 workers went on strike, most to press for reduction of the workday to eight hours from an industry average of 12. The year 1886 also saw the infamous Haymarket affair in Chicago, in which the explosion of a bomb at a huge workers’ rally in Haymarket Square killed a police offi cer, prompting the police to fi re into the crowd, killing one protester and injuring many more and later resulting in the hanging of four labor organizers. Major industrialists and fi nanciers, backed by the nation’s major newspapers, seized on the Haymarket events to denounce organized labor as dominated by anarchists and terrorists determined to destroy the nation’s social fabric. The charge had little factual foundation, although it found plausibility in the past decade’s immigration from Germany, Italy, and elsewhere of many seasoned labor organizers infl uenced by the ideologies of socialism, communism, syndicalism, and anarchism then sweeping across much of Europe. Haymarket and its aftermath had a strong dampening effect on more radical labor organizing efforts. Political parties devoted to advancing the cause of working people also multiplied in the post–Civil War years, most notably the Socialist Labor Party, led by Daniel De Leon, founded in the 1870s. Some workingmen’s parties built their strength on appeals to white workers’ racism, such as Dennis Kearney’s Workingmen’s Party of California, instrumental in pressuring Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Unlike in Europe, however, the enfranchisement of white male workers made exclusively labor-oriented labor unions and labor movements in the United States 217 political parties less salient, and workingmen’s parties never offered a serious challenge to the country’s dominant political parties. In 1890 the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) was founded in Columbus, Ohio, and in the coming years spread its organizing drives throughout the coal mining districts of Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Illinois, Utah, Colorado, and beyond. Affi liated with the AFL and associated with such legendary labor leaders as “Mother Mary” Jones and John L. Lewis, the UMWA remained one of the nation’s most infl uential unions well into the 20th century. The 1890s also saw two of the most storied events in modern U.S. labor history: the 1892 Homestead Strike and the 1894 Pullman Strike. Both involved entire communities in large company towns, pitched battles between strikers and company-hired armed guards, intervention of state militias and federal troops, and deaths on both sides. Both also ended in defeat for the strikers, and both created a legacy of militancy and sacrifi ce that became emblazoned onto the collective consciousness of organized labor. In this mounting confl ict between labor and capital, the executive branch of government, at both state and federal levels, actively and consistently sided with business. So, too, did the courts. Emblematic here was the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, a law intended to break up monopolies and trusts by barring combinations in restraint of trade. Instead of targeting business combinations, the courts used the law to weaken organized labor, essentially declaring strikes illegal if they interfered with interstate commerce, which virtually all could be interpreted to do. FURTHER ORGANIZATION By the 1890s, especially under the impact of the economic depression of 1893–98, the struggle between labor and capital as mediated by a partisan state was entering a new phase. The very concept of trade or craft unionism, criticized for many years as too narrow a basis for organizing working people, was being increasingly challenged by an emergent industrial unionism, which focused not on individual crafts but on entire industries: steel, mining, construction, transportation, manufacturing, and others. Epitomizing this industrial approach to organizing was the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, or Wobblies), founded in 1905 and committed to the vision of one big union that embraced all workers everywhere. As organized labor’s tactics and strategies evolved, so too did business’s. By the 1890s work was becoming increasingly homogenized and standardized, the labor process itself increasingly under the control and supervision of management—a trend that has generated an extensive scholarly debate on the question of the deskilling of labor with the rise of factories and mass production. If the power of organized labor had grown substantially during the Second Industrial Revolution, the power of big capital had grown far more. Overall, organized labor remained much weaker than business, its victories small and tenuous compared to the victories of the forces arrayed against it. As the foregoing survey makes plain, the growth of organized labor during the period examined here was neither linear nor continuous. Instead, it was marked by complex ebbs and fl ows, with periods of growth and advance punctuated by periods of retrenchment and decline. There is a lack of scholarly consensus on how to conceptualize the history of organized labor during these years. Still, many would agree that the period 1870–1930 comprises a coherent temporal unit that witnessed the formation of the modern U.S. labor movement. Earlier studies of labor history focused principally on organizations and institutions, exemplifi ed by the Commons School of the 1910s–1930s and the work of Philip S. Foner from the 1940s. Around 1960, there emerged in Britain and North America a new labor history (alongside a new social history) that looked beyond formal institutions to examine workers’ struggles at the point of production and in the wider community, as well as women’s labor history, including unpaid and reproductive labor, and the role of family, culture, ideology, race, gender, and sexuality. From the late 1980s labor studies emphasized languages of labor and discourses of worker protest, action, and culture. Meanwhile, empirically dense scholarship in the tradition of E. P. Thompson and Herbert Gutman has remained a mainstay of the fi eld. Further reading: Fink, Leon. Workingmen’s Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1983; Gutman, Herbert G. Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America: Essays in American Working Class and Social History. New York: Vintage, 1976; Kessler-Harris, Alice. Out to Work: A History of Wage- Earning Women in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982; Laurie, Bruce. Artisans into Workers: Labor in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Noonday Press, 1989; Montgomery, David. The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865–1925. New York: Cambridge University Press, 218 labor unions and labor movements in the United States 1987; Steffen, Charles G. The Mechanics of Baltimore: Workers and Politics in the Age of Revolution, 1763–1812. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984. Michael J. Schroeder La Pérouse, Jean-François de Galaup, comte de (1741–1788) French explorer and naval leader The story of La Pérouse is one of the great mysteries of the sea. Jean de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse, was born on August 23, 1741, near Albi in France. He signed on to the French navy and saw action against the British in the Seven Years’ War. La Pérouse signed on to the second exploration voyage of Louis Antoine de Bougainville, who had made his fi rst exploration in 1763. Bougainville had also fought in the Seven Years’ War. When his trip began in 1763, Bougainville sailed with two ships for exploration and discovery, not a naval expedition. The main purpose of Bougainville’s travel was to establish the existence of the Malvinas Islands, the Falklands, off the coast of Argentina. He was successful in his mission. Bougainville arrived back in France in 1764. The success of his trip encouraged King Louis XV to charter another mission to circumnavigate the globe. When the expedition left the port of Brest on December 6, 1766, La Pérouse sailed with Bougainville. Again Bougainville was careful to take with him both scientists and writers, so that the expedition would be carefully chronicled and any new species of fl ora or fauna be scientifi cally recorded. On March 16, 1769, Bougainville returned to France to receive the acclaim of the scientifi c community and the king, who received him personally at the palace at Versailles. After his voyage with Bougainville, La Pérouse continued his career in the French navy. During the American Revolution—which many in France saw as a chance for revenge at France’s loss to Britain in the Seven Years’ War—La Pérouse undertook a daring attack on British forts on Hudson Bay in the north of Canada in August 1782. La Pérouse took two forts: Fort York and Fort Prince of Wales. In 1785, after peace had been made in the Treaty of Paris in 1783, La Pérouse was chosen by King Louis XVI to follow in Bougainville’s footsteps and lead a voyage of exploration. Sailing across the North and South Atlantic, La Pérouse succeeded in making the tumultuous passage of Cape Horn safely, to emerge into the calmer waters of the Pacifi c. He stopped off in Chile, which was an ally of France due to the Bourbon family compact. Both Spain and France were ruled by different branches of the Bourbon family. Although the mission was largely exploratory, the Spanish contact showed its military side. La Pérouse then sailed northward, visiting Hawaii and Easter Island. He most likely knew that Captain James Cook, sailing on HMS Resolution, had been killed on the Sandwich Islands in February 1779 in a skirmish with the natives, so it must be assumed that La Pérouse treated them with great caution and, as a career navy offi cer, was ready for any sudden attack by them. When La Pérouse reached Alaska in late June, tragedy struck the expedition, as three boats were taken by strong currents, resulting in the loss of 21 men. After his voyage to Monterey, he made an amazing crossing to the Portuguese colony of Macao, off the coast of China. France already had an interest in this region, from the trade of the Compagnie des Indes, which had fought a battle for supremacy in India but lost against the British in the Seven Years’ War. In 1787 La Pérouse continued his exploration of the Pacifi c coast, stopping at the island of Cheju in Korea. La Pérouse proceeded to Sakhalin Island, where he was impressed by the inhabitants. He wanted to sail his ships between Sakhalin and the Asian mainland but instead felt it more feasible to sail through the body of water between Sakhalin and the most northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. He reached Petropavlosk in September 1787 and began the most critical part of his voyage. He had received secret missions to explore the Botany Bay colony in what is now Australia. While Botany Bay has become better known as a penal colony, it was also an excellent harbor from which the British could begin to explore and claim the islands of the South Pacifi c—something that the French wished to do. His next landfall was Samoa, then known as the Navigator Islands. Tragically, his friend de Langle was killed by the Samoans. In Botany Bay, La Pérouse was greeted by the British, who unfortunately had no supplies to spare. He continued on his journey after forwarding his journals and some correspondence home via a British ship. He was headed for New Caledonia, the Solomons, and other areas along the western and southern coasts of Australia, but he was never seen again. An expedition was sent to fi nd him but returned to France without answers. Historians note that for La Pérouse, Jean-François de Galaup 219 the French government to utilize resources during the French Revolution to fi nd La Pérouse, he was clearly an important man. In 1826 English captain Peter Dillon purchased some swords in Santa Cruz that he thought might have belonged to La Pérouse. Locals told him about the wreckage of two ships nearby, and when Dillon investigated, he found what was left of the ships. He returned some identifi able remains of the ships, and the last surviving member of the original expedition was able to identify them as having come from one of La Pérouse’s ships. The story was reconstructed, and historians now believe that the two ships were wrecked on the coral reefs, and some of the men aboard were killed by natives. The others built a small boat in an attempt to fi nd safety, but their boat wrecked probably near the Solomons. Another theory holds that the two ships were struck by a tropical cyclone, but that the survivors had indeed managed to sail to the Solomon Islands. While archaeological fi ndings are suggestive, they were not defi nite proof that the ships had belonged to La Pérouse. Thus, like Amelia Earhart after him, the ultimate fate of La Pérouse will most likely remain one of the enduring mysteries of the South Pacifi c. See also Bourbon restoration. Further reading: Dunmore, John. Pacifi c Explorer: The Life of Jean-Francois de La Pérouse, 1741–1788. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1985; La Pérouse Jean-Francois de Galaup. Voages and Adventures of La Pérouse. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1969. John F. Murphy, Jr. Latin America, Bourbon reforms in By the late 17th century, the Spanish state had grown ossifi ed, its grip on its overseas empire enfeebled. Trade and production in its American colonies had stagnated, Spain’s debts had mounted, and its imperial rivals had grown greatly in power—especially the English, Dutch, and French. Following the death of the heirless Charles II, the last Habsburg ruler of Spain in 1700, the War of the Spanish Succession, and the resulting Peace of Utrecht, the French Bourbon dynasty assumed control of the Spanish Crown. There followed under Bourbon rule a series of reforms intended to reinvigorate the state and empire. The Bourbon assumption of the Spanish throne from 1713 heralded the onset of a host of changes in law and policy, domestically and overseas— changes that fall under the general heading of the Bourbon reforms. The overarching goals of the Bourbon reforms in the Americas were to strengthen Spain’s dominion and control of its colonial holdings and thus reenergize the empire. These goals were to be achieved by centralizing state power through a series of administrative reforms; increasing production and trade within the colonies; augmenting the revenues fl owing into the Spanish treasury; and undermining the power of the Crown’s opponents and rivals. Ironically, these shifts in law and policy, intended to bring the colonies more closely under Spain’s control—and occurring just as the Enlightenment was profoundly transforming the face of the Atlantic world (indeed, the ideological impulse inspiring the Bourbon reforms has been called the Catholic Enlightenment)—ended up having the opposite effect: alienating the colonies’ Creole (American-born Spanish) population, intensifying their sense of American nationalism, and laying the groundwork for the wars of independence in the fi rst quarter of the 19th century. For purposes of analysis, the reforms instituted can be divided by the Bourbon monarchs Philip V, Ferdinand VI, Charles III, and Charles IV into the following categories: economic, political and administrative, military, and religious. The most intensive period of reform began in the 1760s under Charles III. To understand the origins and impact of these reforms, it is necessary to situate them in the context of the major events of the 18th century, especially the Seven Years’ War/French and Indian War in North America, the Caribbean, and elsewhere, and the French Revolution in 1789—the republicanism and tumult of the latter horrifying monarchs across Europe, especially in Spain, and effectively ending the period of the Bourbon reforms in Spain’s American colonies. ECONOMIC REFORMS Some of the principal goals of the Bourbon reforms were to increase production of primary export products in the colonies and trade within the colonies and between the colonies and Spain. Of greatest concern to the Crown was mining, which provided the bulk of the revenues fl owing into the Spanish treasury. In an effort to stimulate silver production, in 1736 the Crown slashed its tax (the royal fi fth) in half. It also helped to ensure a lower price for mercury, funded technical schools and credit banks, dispensed titles of nobility to prosperous mine owners, and facilitated the formation 220 Latin America, Bourbon reforms in of mining guilds. Similar measures were adopted to increase gold production, especially in New Granada, the Crown’s major source of gold. From 1717 the Crown also created state monopolies on tobacco production and trade. In keeping with the precepts of mercantilism, one of the major concerns of the Bourbon monarchs was to prevent the colonies from producing manufactured goods that would compete with goods exported from Spain. The resulting royal restrictions on industry and manufacturing in the colonies severely dampened colonial entrepreneurial activity, with the exceptions of the export-oriented mining, ranching, and agricultural sectors. A related mercantilist concern was to restrict trade with foreigners, especially the British, and thus ensure that all colonial trade was directed solely to Spain. A long series of laws and decrees were intended to achieve this result, most notably the compendious legal code of 1778, “Regulations and Royal Tariffs for Free Trade between Spain and the Indies.” Many elite Creoles bridled at these and related restrictions, heightening their sense of alienation from the Crown. Similarly, measures to increase production in mining and agriculture generally meant more onerous production and labor regimes for workers and slaves. Overall, the Bourbon economic reforms succeeded in their aim of increasing production, trade, and royal revenues, while at the same time undermining both elite and subordinate groups’ sense of loyalty and allegiance to the Crown. POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS Accompanying the economic reforms were a host of political and administrative measures intended, again, to increase royal control of the colonies. One set of administrative reforms was to carve two new viceroyalties out of the Viceroyalty of Peru: the Viceroyalty of New Granada (1717 and 1739; a subjurisdiction of New Granada, created in 1777, was the Captaincy- General of Venezuela) and the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata (in 1776). Following a series of inspections (visitas generales) from 1765–71, the Crown endeavored to weaken the power of the Creoles, whose infl uence, in the view of some, had grown too large. In pursuit of this aim, audiencias were enlarged and their membership restricted to exclude most Creoles. The most substantial administrative reform came in the 1760s and 1770s, with the creation of a new layer of bureaucracy, a kind of regional governorship called the intendancy, which was to report directly to the minister of the Indies. The intendancy system, which threatened the authority of viceroys and other high administrators, largely failed in its goal of centralizing state control, mainly in consequence of the institutional inertia that had developed over the preceding two centuries and administrators’ resistance to relinquishing their authority. To the extent that the cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus was streamlined and rationalized, it was overwhelmingly in favor of peninsular Spaniards (those born in Spain) and to the detriment of Creole Spaniards—again, heightening many Creoles’ general feelings of disenchantment with royal authority. MILITARY REFORMS Especially in the wake of the British capture of Manila and Havana in 1762 (both returned to Spanish control in the Treaty of Paris of 1763), the Spanish Crown sought to enhance its military power throughout the empire. Efforts to strengthen the military were also rooted in the growing specter of violence from below, most visibly manifest in the Andean revolts from the 1740s to the 1780s. The Crown’s response to these crises was to increase the number of troops under arms and the number of commissioned offi cers. Most such commissions went to Creoles. From 1740 to 1769 Creoles made up about one-third of the offi cer corps. By 1810 the proportion approached two-thirds. Elite Creoles could and often did purchase such commissions—a shortsighted policy that augmented both royal revenues and the power of American-born notables. On the other hand, given the extreme raceclass divisions throughout the colonies, the Crown was reluctant to arm members of the lower classes. Overall, the military reforms failed in the goal of strengthening the ties between Spain and the colonies by creating a large body of Creole offi cers who would later prove instrumental in the wars of independence. RELIGIOUS REFORMS The alliance and intermingling of Crown and church is one of the major themes of Spanish-American colonial history. In 1753, as part of the broader effort to reassert royal supremacy, the Crown negotiated a concordat with Rome stipulating greater royal authority in the nomination and appointment of ecclesiastical authorities. But the most consequential Bourbon reform in the religious realm was the expulsion of the Jesuits from all of Spanish America (and from Spain) in 1767. By the 1760s the Society of Jesus had become one of the most powerful institutions in the colonies—economically, politically, religiously, and in the realm of education by virtue of its extensive Latin America, Bourbon reforms in 221 system of schools and colleges. The 1767 expulsion of some 2,200 Jesuits from Spanish America reverberated throughout the empire, as many Creoles, either educated in Jesuit colleges or sympathetic to the order’s progressive outlook, found the expulsion deeply troubling. In subsequent decades, the Crown auctioned off the estates and properties accumulated by the Jesuits and pocketed the proceeds. The Jesuits’ expulsion was a crucial source of disenchantment among many elite Creoles, driving yet another wedge between the Crown and those whose support it would most need to perpetuate its American empire. All of these Bourbon reforms—economic, administrative and political, military, and religious—had multiple and contradictory effects, at some levels drawing the colonies closer to Spain and at other levels deepening divisions. Part of a broader trend in the 18th-century Atlantic world toward more modern and interventionist state forms, the reforms on the whole failed to achieve their intended results, mainly by generating diverse elite Creole grievances against royal authority— an accumulation of grievances that, in this age of rising nationalist sentiments in Europe and the Americas, facilitated the formation of a distinctly American identity and thus laid the groundwork for the wars of independence after the Napoleonic invasion of Iberia in 1807–08. Further reading: Bethell, Leslie, ed. The Cambridge History of Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984; Deans-Smith, Susan. Bureaucrats, Planters, and Workers: The Making of the Tobacco Monopoly in Bourbon Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992; Lynch, John. Bourbon Spain, 1700–1808. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Michael J. Schroeder Latin America, economic and political liberalism in In the wake of the American Revolution and the French Revolution in the late 18th century, Enlightenment ideologies of republicanism, political equality, secular government, private property, and the rights of citizenship spread across the Western Hemisphere, from Mexico and the Caribbean to Central and South America. Over the next several generations, these Enlightenment- inspired ideas were appropriated by diverse groups of actors, combined with existing ideologies, and adapted to suit local circumstances. This constellation of ideas and beliefs can be divided into two broad categories: political liberalism and economic liberalism. In general terms, economic liberalism can be defi ned as adherence to the principles of private property and free trade, essentially to the principles underlying capitalism. Political liberalism can be defi ned as placing the individual rights of citizens before the state and the equality of citizens before the law and variously includes the rights of free speech, assembly, religion, and voting. (The U.S. Bill of Rights can be taken as a good guide to the general principles of political liberalism.) Both dimensions of liberalism constituted the individual as their primary subject, in contradistinction to the state, thus creating a contractual basis of government centered on a compact between state and citizen. This liberal, or republican, ideology stood in sharp contrast to pre-Enlightenment notions of sovereign and subject—a notion in that the sovereign ruled by divine right, and society was divided into various orders or corporate entities that exercised collective rights (church, hereditary nobility, merchant guilds, craft guilds, military orders, and others). In this pre-Enlightenment worldview, subjects enjoyed only those rights granted by the sovereign, or those established through long-standing custom, a set of ideas that formed the basis for Spanish and Portuguese rule throughout the long colonial period. In Latin America, beginning in the late 18th century and accelerating through the 19th, the colonialera principles of collective political rights and collective rights in property came under increasing assault by republican notions of individual political rights and individual rights in property. Predictably, those collective entities, long accustomed to exercising corporate rights, often fi ercely resisted being shorn of those rights. The most important collective entities in colonial Latin America were the Roman Catholic Church, military orders, and Indian communities. For the church and the military, collective rights were most tangibly expressed in the fueros, or special privileges, which included taxation, property and inheritance laws, and others but were especially manifest in the judicial system. Clergy and military offi cers enjoyed a long history of immunity from prosecution in civil courts, instead being subject to special ecclesiastical or military tribunals constituted and operated by their respective corporations. For Indian communities, collective rights were most tangibly represented in various types of corporate land ownership. By law and custom, Indian communities owned land in common. These collective 222 Latin America, economic and political liberalism in rights in land were of diverse types and varied widely across the Americas. The essential point here concerns the collective nature of Indian communities’ rights to land and property. Liberalism, with its emphasis on the individual, represented a direct assault on the collective rights exercised by the church, the military, and Indian communities. In order to create equality before the law, liberal ideology required the replacement of these corporate rights by individual rights. Resistance to this transformation often was fierce. Epitomizing such conflicts was the War of the Reforms in Mexico after the promulgation of the liberal constitution of 1857. Rallying to the cry of “Religion and fueros!,” conservatives mounted a massive rebellion to overturn the constitution. Many Indian communities also rebelled against liberal efforts to eradicate their collective rights. From 1819 to 1900 Mexico saw the eruption of more than 100 revolts, uprisings, and rebellions by Indian communities. Of the 54 cases for which data is available, disputes over land were identified as the principal precipitating factor in 40 instances, the remainder rooted principally in disputes over taxation and other factors. similar processes unfolded in Peru and Bolivia, where the liberal land reforms of the 1880s and 1890s sparked massive Indian resistance that persisted into the 20th century. As liberal ideology took hold in the second half of the 19th century, and in response to widespread resistance to liberal reforms undermining collective rights, many liberal states relaxed their efforts to transform corporate subjects into individual citizens, suppressing individual rights while aggressively promoting capitalist development. Here the distinction between political and economic liberalism becomes salient. In 19th-century Latin America it was common for ruling regimes to squelch political liberalism while engaging in highly interventionist policies designed to promote economic liberalism. Perennially strapped for cash, many ruling regimes found promotion of capitalist development, especially via production for export, essential for the fiscal health of the state. Among the best examples of this trend is the regime of Porfirio Díaz in Mexico, which under the positivist banner of “Order and Progress” aggressively stifled individual liberties while actively encouraging foreign investment, free trade, private property, and capitalist development. In the name of “order” (political stability), the Díaz regime severely circumscribed individual rights of speech, assembly, and voting, while in the name of “progress” (capitalist development), individual rights to trade, invest, and buy and sell land, labor, and other commodities flourished. In the late 19th century, a growing disjuncture emerged in many parts of the Americas between a suppressed political liberalism and a burgeoning economic liberalism. In Brazil, slavery and other forms of bound and indentured servitude coexisted for many years with the explosive growth of the coffee economy. Foreign investment poured into the country, public lands were privatized, and labor transformed into a saleable commodity, while the rights of assembly, speech, and voting remained severely limited. In the Andean republics of Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Colombia, liberal legislation privatizing land and encouraging foreign investment and free trade were frequently accompanied by violent suppression of the political rights of both rural and urban dwellers. Modern history demonstrates innumerable instances in which states have effectively separated the political and economic dimensions of liberalism. A useful contemporary analogy can be made with China following the reforms of Deng Xiaopeng from the 1980s. In this case, the ruling communist regime made no pretense of granting political rights to individual citizens while actively encouraging the growth of markets, industry, and other core features of capitalist development. Beginning with the consolidation of liberal states in the second half of the 19th century, Latin America abounds with instances in which capitalist development and the flourishing of markets, private property, foreign investment, free trade, and a secular state proved entirely compatible with a repressive state apparatus, the absence of democratic institutions, sham elections, and the systematic suppression of citizens’ rights. See also coffee revolution; labor unions and labor movements in the United States; socialism. Further reading: Hale, Charles A. The Transformation of Liberalism in Late Nineteenth Century Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991; Katz, Friedreich, ed. Riot, Rebellion, and Revolution: Rural Social Conflict in Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988; Lynch, John. Caudillos in Spanish America, 1800–1850. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992; Morse, Richard. New World Soundings: Culture and Ideology in the Americas. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989; Woodward, Ralph Lee, ed. Positivism in Latin America, 1850– 1900: Are Order and Progress Reconcilable? Lexington, MA: Heath, 1971. Michael J. Schroeder Latin America, economic and political liberalism in 223 Latin America, export economies in In the 1950s there emerged in Latin America an infl uential scholarly paradigm, later dubbed the “dependency school,” or dependistas, that emphasized Latin America’s historic insertion into the expanding global capitalist economy as a subordinate producer of primary export products for the dominant industrial economies of Europe and North America. In contrast to the dominant neoclassical, or modernization, school of the period, which assumed a direct correlation between economic growth and national development, the dependency school emphasized the development of underdevelopment as an active process, pointing especially to Latin America’s historic export orientation as the prime motor of its progressive and continuing impoverishment. Since that time, scholars have examined diverse aspects of the historic formation of Latin American export economies from the colonial period through the 20th century. Special attention has been paid to the emergence of new export products in response to rising demand in the industrial world; the strategies pursued by emergent states to encourage production for export, especially taxation and tariff policies; the extent to which growing export production fueled the growth of states’ administrative and fi scal capacities and spawned economic growth in nonexport sectors; the deleterious consequences of export dependency in a boom-and-bust global market; and the formation of new social classes and related social dynamics set in motion by rising production for export. Scholars broadly agree about the historic export orientation of Latin American economies and cluster into varied and often confl icting interpretive schools regarding what that export orientation has meant historically. In the late colonial period, the Bourbon reforms imposed by the Spanish state were intended, in large part, to reinvigorate traditional export economies, particularly silver mining, but also including gold, sugar, indigo, cacao, and tobacco. With independence of most of Latin America by the 1820s, chronic fi scal insolvency was one of the principal problems confronting the newly independent states. In response to perennially empty treasuries and populaces with few taxable resources, states devised a range of strategies intended to enhance their revenue streams, particularly the promotion of production for export. These strategies promoting exports dovetailed with the desire of foreign investors and national elites for profi ts, and with sharply rising demands for industrial commodities and tropical agricultural products in consequence of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the United States and Europe. The result across large parts of Latin America was an intensifi cation of the export-led model of national development. THE COFFEE REVOLUTION The coffee revolution in Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and elsewhere from the 1830s to the 1880s is often taken as emblematic of this emergent export-led model. Especially after the 1850s, skyrocketing coffee exports provided these and other states with a valuable taxable resource, enhancing their fi scal and administrative capacities and permitting the further expansion of export-oriented physical infrastructure, especially roads, railroads, and port facilities. In Peru, guano played a similar role, as did copper and nitrates in Chile; wheat and beef products in Argentina; tin, lead, and zinc in Bolivia and Mexico; bananas in the Caribbean Basin; and many other export commodities in the region’s nation-states. PERU AND CHILE The guano boom in Peru offers a paradigmatic example of these processes. Over the millennia, the many islands off the Peruvian Pacifi c coast had accumulated massive deposits of bird droppings. Rich in ammonia, phosphates, and nitrogen, in the 1840s guano began to be mined and exported by a consortium of British, French, and Peruvian mining and shipping interests and marketed as a fertilizer in Europe and North America. The age of guano lasted until the 1880s, after which guano deposits were largely depleted. The estimated 20 million tons of Peruvian guano mined during this period netted an estimated $2 billion on the world market. The guano boom provided a ready source of taxable revenue for the Peruvian state while accelerating the formation of a new commercial class in Lima and beyond. Much of the profi t went into conspicuous consumption among the guano elite and interest on government debt to European banking houses; the guano crash in the 1870s generated a fi scal crisis for the Peruvian state. Similar in both its overseas markets and domestic effects was the nitrate boom in Peru and Chile from the 1830s to the 1930s. Used in fertilizers, explosives, and in various industrial processes, nitrates accumulated by natural processes in huge deposits in presentday Chile’s northern coastal Atacama Desert provinces of Tarapacá and Antofagasta. In 1843 an estimated 16 thousand tons was mined and exported. By the height 224 Latin America, export economies in of World War I, in response to the huge demand for military applications, production reached around 3 million tons annually. The nitrate boom not only provided an important source of revenue for the Peruvian and Chilean states but, along with guano, sparked a major war, the War of the Pacifi c, between Bolivia, Peru, and Chile. In the war, Chile wrested from Bolivia its sole coastal province of Antofagasta—making Bolivia landlocked, as it remains to this day—and from Peru its province of Tarapacá. From the 1880s to the 1930s Chile was the world’s largest nitrate producer; by 1913 the mineral accounted for more than 70 percent of Chile’s total exports. Copper began to be mined on a large scale in the 1840s and 1850s. By 1870 Chile supplied about one-quarter of the world’s copper, a commodity that saw sharply rising U.S. and European demand following the invention of the telegraph in the 1840s and electric light and power in the 1870s. After a sharp decline in the 1880s and 1890s, copper production surged again in the early 20th century, comprising only 7 percent of the country’s exports by 1913 but over 80 percent by the early 1970s. The effects on the Chilean state and society were complex. From the 1840s to the 1930s, with revenues earned from nitrates in particular, the state invested substantially in public infrastructure, education, and other government services, while periodic global economic downturns wreaked havoc with state fi nances and sparked a string of political crises and episodes of civil unrest. Sprawling open-air nitrate and deep-shaft copper mining operations and their associated processing and refi ning facilities, owned mainly by U.S. and British capital, attracted a large wage labor force whose organized struggles compose a major chapter in modern Chilean history. ARGENTINA In Argentina, the explosive growth of the meat and cereal industries in the second half of the 19th century enhanced the power of Buenos Aires vis-à-vis the interior provinces, facilitating the consolidation of the national state dominated by the port city while deepening dependence on European investment capital and markets. Argentina went through several stages in the development of its export economy, from an earlier emphasis on sheep, mutton, and wool from the 1840s to the 1880s to the rapid expansion of the cattle and wheat industries after 1880, oriented overwhelmingly toward Europe. British banks and investors were key in providing the capital needed to build a network of roads and railroads connecting the interior provinces to Buenos Aires. The invention of refrigerated steamships in the 1880s permitted vast quantities of Argentine beef to reach European markets. At the same time, wheat production soared. From 1872 to 1895 wheat production on the vast open grasslands, or pampas, increased fi fteenfold; by 1895 nearly 10 million acres had gone under the plow, with annual exports exceeding 1 million tons and making Argentina one of the world’s leading wheat exporters. In the 1890s the surging growth of the beef and wheat industries attracted an average of 50,000 mostly Italian and Spanish migrants annually, swelling the port city’s working class and generating a major transformation in the country’s class structure. Most of the interior lands came to be owned by a small number of wealthy landowners, or estancieros, further sharpening class divisions. In the late 1880s this breakneck growth was accompanied by rising government debt, precipitating a major political crisis in 1889–90. Overall, Argentina’s export orientation generated a national economy dominated by Buenos Aires and highly dependent on European investors and markets, a highly skewed landowning structure, and a vast and politically disfranchised urban working class that would play a key role in the country’s 20th-century history. ELSEWHERE IN LATIN AMERICA In the late 19th century, the skyrocketing European and North American demand for industrial minerals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin generated similar processes in Bolivia, northern Mexico, Chile, and elsewhere. In Bolivia, the expansion of tin mining after 1890 came to be dominated by a handful of oligarchic families, while the mostly indigenous tin miners earned the equivalent of pennies per day while working in exceedingly dangerous conditions, many dying prematurely from silicosis and other debilitating pulmonary diseases. By 1913 tin composed more than 70 percent of Bolivian exports. The vast bulk of the proceeds from tin exports went into lavish consumption by the political elite and very little into education, public health, or other government services, while the country’s indigenous majority remained mired in abject poverty. In northern Mexico, the years preceding the Mexican Revolution saw the rapid development of silver, lead, copper, gold, zinc, and tin mines owned by German, French, and U.S. investors, including the Guggenheim family, which had extensive investments in mining across large parts of northern Mexico (as well as Chile and elsewhere), and U.S. Colonel William Green, Latin America, export economies in 225 owner of the Cananea Consolidated Copper Company and the so-called “copper king of Sonora.” The mining boom sparked the formation of an economically exploited and politically oppressed working class in northern Mexico that would fi ll the ranks of rebel chieftain Pancho Villa’s revolutionary armies and play a key role in the Mexican Revolution. The banana boom along the Atlantic littorals of Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, and elsewhere in the Caribbean from the late 1890s generated similar processes. Like Peru’s guano, Chile’s nitrates and copper, and Mexico’s silver and lead, the Caribbean banana industry formed economic enclaves within various national economies, oriented almost exclusively toward overseas markets and generating weak economic linkages to the national economies of host countries. As elsewhere, domestic industry faltered as national economies became geared overwhelmingly toward production for export. In the 20th century, this historic dependence on exports continued to play a major role in economic, political, social, and cultural life across the southern parts of the hemisphere. Over the past decades, scholarly investigations into Latin America’s export orientation, and the varied effects of export economies in specifi c instances, have spawned a vast literature. Debates continue to rage regarding whether this export orientation has generated genuine economic development, or, conversely, has actively helped to create the region’s poverty and underdevelopment. Further reading: Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Galeano, Eduardo. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. Translated by Cedruc Belfrage. New York: Monthly Review, 1973; Gootenberg, Paul. Imagining Development: Economic Ideas in Peru’s “Fictitious Prosperity” of Guano, 1840–1880. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993; Nash, June. We Eat the Mines and the Mines Eat Us: Dependency and Exploitation in Bolivian Tin Mines. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979; Rock, David. Argentina, 1516–1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Michael J. Schroeder Latin America, independence in The period from the 1770s to the 1820s has been aptly called the Age of Revolution. In North America and Europe, the successful independence struggle of the United States in the American Revolution was quickly followed by the French Revolution and, soon after, the Napoleonic Wars, transforming the political map of Europe. The American and French Revolutions also reverberated across the southern part of the Western Hemisphere, fi rst in Saint-Domingue (Haiti), where slave and free mulatto rebels seized on the French revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity to launch the only successful large-scale slave rebellion in the history of the Americas. The events of the Haitian Revolution, in turn, reverberated back across the Americas and Europe. Subsequent events unfolded in rapid succession, such that by the mid-1820s all but a handful of American colonies had gained their independence from Spain and Portugal. The long- and medium-term origins of Latin American independence movements can be traced to Enlightenment notions of republicanism and the contractual basis of government; the unintended consequences of the Bourbon reforms, which sparked a growing sense of Creole nationalism; the examples of the United States and France (in contrast to the Haitian Revolution, which horrifi ed elites across the Americas, especially slave owners, and served as a cautionary tale in unleashing the tiger of popular discontent); and related factors. Their short-term trigger was the Napoleonic invasion of Iberia in 1807–08. The forced abdication of King Ferdinand VII created a crisis of authority in Spain, which in turn generated a crisis of authority in Spain’s American colonies. In the absence of royal authority, who would exercise and wield it? From whence would the authority to govern derive? CREOLE MOVES TOWARD INDEPENDENCE These were the questions that prompted the formation of cabildos abiertos, or open town councils, from 1810 in Spanish America’s largest cities: Caracas, Buenos Aires, Cartagena, Cali, Bogotá, Santiago, Mexico City, and elsewhere. While each followed a distinct trajectory, in essence these cabildos abiertos represented Creoles’ seizure of political authority from, or in the name of, the deposed king. In most such cabildos, opposing camps quickly emerged: conservatives, who favored continued obedience to royal authority, and autonomists, who favored moving toward independence. If middling positions, factions, and ambiguities abounded, the major tendencies, like the overall direction of change, were clear. Most Creole elites understood that independence ultimately would be achieved. The more 226 Latin America, independence in pressing questions were when would independence be achieved, and how would the Creole population go about attaining it. Creole elites desirous of independence soon found themselves walking a tightrope: The struggle for independence must not undermine existing relations of privilege and power within the Americas. The lessons of Haiti, and of local traditions of popular discontent and rebellion, resounded loudly throughout the halls of the cabildos abiertos and beyond. Soon, opponents of moving quickly toward independence could invoke another powerful object lesson: the massive uprising led by the Creole priest Miguel Hidalgo in Mexico, beginning in September 1810. The specter of Hidalgo’s ragtag army of upwards of 100,000 dirt farmers and unemployed mestizos and Indians looting granaries, slaughtering Spaniards, and standing on the outskirts of Mexico City before dispersing and its remnants being crushed by the Spanish army, sent shock waves throughout the colonies, much as the Haitian Revolution had done. Creole revolutionaries would thus seek to achieve a political revolution from above—formal independence— without sparking a social revolution from below. Knowing that war is a powerful solvent of existing social hierarchies, Creole rebel leaders strove to prevent long-standing relations of power and privilege from dissolving in the cauldron of armed confl ict. On the whole they succeeded. Another major infl uence on the course of events was the profound regionalism in Spanish and Portuguese South America—a consequence of the continent’s historical development as producer of primary export products, the coastal orientation of major population centers, a rudimentary transport and communications infrastructure, and major geographic barriers (especially the Andes and the Amazon Basin). Independence movements thus assumed very different characters in different parts of the empire. SEVERING LINKS TO EUROPE The fi rst region to sever the link with Spain was Río de la Plata, the youngest viceroyalty and furthest removed geographically from the metropole. Creole elites in Buenos Aires and Montevideo actually began their fi ght for national self-determination in 1806, two years before Ferdinand VII’s abdication, in their battle against a British invasion of Buenos Aires. The Creoles’ resounding defeat of the British expeditionary force in 1807 demonstrated to them the weakness of Spain’s defenses and their own power to infl uence events. Peninsular Spaniards tried to put the genie of independence back into the bottle, but events had overtaken them. “The great victory of Buenos Aires,” wrote the Argentine statesman Bartolomé Mitre years later, gave Creoles “a new sense of nationality.” In what was later called the May Revolution, on May 25, 1810, a Creole-dominated cabildo effectively assumed political control of the province of Buenos Aires. There followed a complex series of struggles and intrigues among Creole factions, and between the interior provinces and Buenos Aires, which lasted through the 1810s and after. In the process, Río de la Plata lost control of Upper Peru (Bolivia), a major source of income by virtue of the silver trade. While the political entity called the Republic of Argentina did not come into existence until 1862, the upshot was clear: The Río de la Plata region was the fi rst to gain independence from Spain. It was quickly followed by Paraguay in May 1811, under the leadership of José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, who ruled the country as an autocrat until his death in 1840. INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS To briefl y summarize the complex sequence of events that followed, from this point the independence movements in South America basically developed from two main centers and under two principal leaders: from northern South America under Simón Bolívar, and from Chile under José de San Martín—the latter a Creole from Corrientes in the north of present-day Argentina, educated in Spain, who returned to Buenos Aires in 1812 to join the fray. The overall course of their military campaigns can be conceived as a kind of giant pincer movement, with Bolívar fi rst liberating the region of Venezuela-Colombia in the years 1810–1821 before moving southwest to Peru, and with San Martín fi rst crossing the Andes and liberating Chile in 1814–1818 before moving north, with the help of the British Lord Cochrane and linking up with Bolívar in Peru. The fi nal battles took place in Peru in 1824, with Bolívar’s able commander General Antonio José de Sucre delivering the fi nal blow against the remaining Spanish forces in the Battle of Ayacucho on December 9, 1824. Henceforth, all of Spanish South America was independent. In subsequent years, patriotic narratives about the liberation leaders’ courage and heroism became the stuff of myth and legend, as in Bolívar’s epic crossing of the Andes in May–August 1819, or San Martín’s fabled January–February 1817 march across the Andes into Chile, where he joined forces with the Chilean patriot Bernardo O’higgins. Similarly lauded were Latin America, independence in 227 the exploits of the illiterate llanero (plainsman) José Antonio Páez on the llanos of Venezuela, who outfoxed the Spaniards time and again and went on to become Bolívar’s ally, the fi rst president of the republic of Venezuela in 1830, and one of the country’s wealthiest landowners. These and other events have spawned a vast literature. An especially memorable moment came in the storied meeting between the two giants of liberation, Bolívar and San Martín, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, in July 1822. No one knows what was said at these meetings, only that two months later San Martín resigned his position as protector of Peru, withdrew from the struggle, and, a year later, departed from South America, never to return, leaving Bolívar the uncontested title of liberator of the continent. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LEGACIES The legacies of the independence movements were no less complex. If political independence had been achieved without sparking a major confl agration from below, one consequence was the persistence of profoundly unequal relations of power and privilege: between the propertied and unpropertied, lettered and unlettered, light-skinned and dark-skinned, male and female. Social mobility increased by degrees, as mestizos gained in power and came to rule most of the emergent nation-states. The institution of African slavery came through the independence period intact, if weakened by virtue of slaves’ participation in the liberation armies. In Venezuela, for instance, the slave population diminished by about one-third. The structural subordination of Indians and Indian communities persisted throughout the period of independence. The Catholic Church largely retained its economic, political, and much of its moral power, becoming a bastion of conservatism after the dust of war had settled. The patriarchal family, patriarchy, and ideologies of honor and shame came through the struggles wholly intact. The endurance of preindependence social hierarchies bequeathed a legacy of inequality and racism that would continue to bedevil the continent into the 20th century and beyond. The economic destruction wrought in the independence struggles was immense. Many regions took decades to regain their preindependence levels of production and commerce. The legacy of militarism was also profound, as the caudillo (political-military strongman), of which Venezuela’s Páez is emblematic, became the key locus of political power in the newly independent nation-states. Liberal democracy remained for many a foreign concept, in a place that for nearly 300 years had seen the formation of no substantial democratic institutions or traditions of power sharing. In these and other ways, the political independence of Latin America was both a revolutionary break with the past and a profoundly conservative process; with the reins of power switching hands, new nation-states created, and the nexus between Europe and the Americas growing denser, the vast majority remainied as poor and as disempowered as under Spanish rule. Yet if continuities with the past were many, much had changed as well, as the reality of independence and the integration of the Atlantic world created the possibility of broader social, political, and economic transformation. BRAZIL’S PEACEFUL REVOLUTION In Brazil, in contrast, independence came not with war but with the solemn cry “Independence or Death!” of Prince Dom Pedro, the son of Portuguese King João VI, as he drew his sword while striding along the banks of the Ipiranga River on September 7, 1822. This famed Cry of Ipiranga, a popular mythology of Brazilian independence, obscures a far more complex sequence of events. In brief, as Napoleon’s armies approached Lisbon in November 1807, Prince Regent João, his wife Princess Carlota, his mother Queen Maria I, his sons Dom Pedro and Dom Miguel, and the entire royal family and court —some 10,000 to 15,000 people all told—climbed aboard the ships of a combined Portuguese-British convoy and set sail for Rio de Janeiro, where they arrived in March 1808, after a brief stop in Bahia, and reestablished the Portuguese government. Portugal’s largest and most important colony, in essence, suddenly became its own metropole; the exile of the House of Braganza in Brazil from 1807 to 1821 is the only instance in which European monarchs ruled an empire from a colony. The arrival of the royal family and court transformed Rio de Janeiro and Brazil. Mercantilist commercial restrictions were lifted, leading to a boom in commerce and trade, mostly with Great Britain. Manufacturing restrictions were abolished; a royal bank was established; Brazil’s fi rst printing press and fi rst newspaper began operation in 1808; and soon after libraries, schools, military academies, medical colleges, and cultural institutes were founded. With the fi nal defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the clamor mounted in Portugal for the royal family’s return. Rather than hasten back to Portugal, on December 16, 1815, João VI proclaimed Brazil a kingdom on equal footing with the metropole, the “United Kingdoms of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves.” João fi nally did return to Portugal, 228 Latin America, independence in in April 1821, in response to a major revolt, leaving his son Prince Pedro behind. Impetuous and romantic, Dom Pedro soon found himself at loggerheads with the Côrtes in Portugal, which sought to return Brazil to subordinate colonial status. It was his receipt of an order from the Côrtes to return that prompted Dom Pedro’s famous “Fico” (“I will stay”) on January 9, 1822, and in September of that year, his Cry of Ipiranga. Brazil’s peaceful path to independence has been interpreted as a prudent strategy on the part of the colony’s dominant groups, especially its slave-owning planter class. It was a way to gain political independence without risking the tumult and disorder of war. Brazil had the largest slave population in the Americas, with nearly 2 million in 1820, a white population of around 1 million, and total population of less than 4 million. The lessons of Haiti were still fresh on the minds of slave owners, not only in Brazil but in other slaveholding colonies, especially Cuba. Brazil’s elites chose a path to independence that left existing relations of power and privilege intact. Cuba’s elites, in contrast, opted to remain under Spanish dominion rather than risk unleashing the wrath of the enslaved. In these and other ways, the specter of violence from below profoundly shaped the timing and nature of independence struggles in Latin America. The extent to which these Latin American revolutions were truly revolutionary remains a matter of debate, though the broad consensus is that continuity, not change, was the predominant tendency, at least in the short term. Perhaps the major interpretive challenge confronting scholars of this period lies precisely in disentangling these changes and continuities, while at the same time situating the Latin American historical experience within the broader framework of the entwined social, political, economic, and cultural transformations that marked the birth of modernity and the Age of Revolution in the Atlantic world and beyond. See also Andean revolts. Further reading: Bethell, Leslie. “The Independence of Brazil.” In The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol 3. Edited by Leslie Bethell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, 157–196; Humphreys, R. A., and John Lynch, eds. The Origins of the Latin American Revolutions, 1808–1826. New York: Knopf, 1966; Lynch, John. The Spanish-American Revolutions, 1808–1826. New York: Norton, 1973. Michael J. Schroeder Latin America, machismo and marianismo in Gender construction in Latin America has often been cited as being significantly influenced by Spanish colonization. Dominant conceptions of masculinity and femininity, referred to as machismo and marianismo respectively, are rooted in the Spanish conquest and influence the sociocultural conditions of Latin America. There is debate as to the relationship, relevance, changes, and influences of the extremes of machismo and marianismo. Machismo Defined Machismo is a form of masculinity that asserts the dominance and superiority of males in society. The term is traced to the Spanish word macho, which means “male” or “manly.” It could also refer to being courageous, valorous, and having gender pride. Although these may be positive connotations, the term machismo is used negatively referring to extreme masculinity encouraged by structures in society. Male dominance and superiority are further legitimized by cultural values and norms. Machismo is characterized by hypervirility or aggressive masculine behavior expected of males in Latin societies. The machos embody physical strength, courage, selfconfidence, heightened sexual power, and bold advances toward women. Machos believe in the superiority of men over women and also adhere to conservative gender roles. The men, for example, can seek extramarital affairs while the women are expected to be faithful. Women do not have the right to participate in traditionally male positions in society. Men occupy the public sphere—the arena of politics, economy, or military—and women occupy the private sphere. Women are expected to stay at home and attend to the needs of their husband and children, to take care of the housework, and to oversee other domestic needs. The main roles of women are to be mothers and wives. Historical Context The origins of machismo in Latin societies come from Spanish traditions. Patriarchy emphasizes nobility, chivalry, swordsmanship, horsemanship, and formal education. Ties with nobles and crusaders are also given great importance. In Mexico, the origins of machismo are also associated with the Spanish conquest and the conquistadores’ exploitation of natives. This is the period in Mexican Latin America, machismo and marianismo in 229 history when Hernán Cortés and the conquistadores set out to convert indigenous populations. The image of the conquistador, who courageously conquered despite being outnumbered, is retained as the prototype of the modern macho male. Likewise, the colonial economic system inculcated a dichotomized sexual division of labor. Men and women existed in separate social spheres. ARCHETYPES OF MACHISMO Author and researcher R. A. Andrade summarizes the four archetypes of machismo that can be found in scholarly and popular literature: the conqueror macho, the playboy macho, the masked macho, and the authentic macho. The conqueror macho exemplifi es invincibility and extreme bravery in facing dangerous situations. Exaggerated sexual potency is one of the characteristics of this archetype. Examples of conqueror machos are gunslingers, or pistoleros. Conqueror machos are generally ruthless and bloodthirsty, and they demand power and break laws. They are the negative sides of this archetype. The playboy macho illustrates males who are permitted to act in a sexually aggressive manner toward females. Sexual, physical, and mental abuses of females are accepted. This chauvinistic archetype is based on the idea of man’s biological, social, and intellectual superiority over females. Men are thus allowed to engage in pleasures such as chasing women and adultery. The masked macho is the third and less common archetype of machismo. A masked macho exemplifi es a man who uses a mask of deceit to hide his real intentions. A masked macho often fi ghts for the oppressed. The legendary Pancho Villa is an example. The last archetype is the authentic macho, a man who is a responsible husband and father. The authentic macho is seen as a more balanced individual who adheres to honor, respect, strength, dignity, and protection of the family. Focused on earning the respect of family and community, this type is not popularized in literature, legends, or movies. MARIANISMO: HISTORICAL CONTEXT Machismo and marianismo are terms that are linked to the culture in Latin America. Marianismo is the female equivalent of machismo and considered to be the embodiment of the feminine. It is characterized by hyperfeminine behavior. Similar to machismo, marianismo is traced back to the time of the Spanish conquest and may have been a reaction to machismo. The roots of marianismo also reside in Roman Catholic theology. It is related to all the elements of Marian devotion seen in various cultural patterns in Latin America. Marian devotion has a long history in colonial New Spain and the independent nation of Mexico. In 1519 Hernán Cortés arrived in Veracruz under the protection of the Roman Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary. In 1531 Juan Diego had a vision of the Virgin of Guadalupe at Tepeyac, to the northeast of Mexico City. The Virgin of Guadalupe became the key symbol of Mexican identity in the mid-17th century. Our Lady of Guadalupe was further proclaimed by the church as patroness of Mexico in 1754 and in 1900 proclaimed the patroness of the Americas. Although historical controversies exist in these accounts, the Virgin Mary played an important role in the Catholic religion and Mexican culture. After almost five centuries of Marian devotion, pilgrimages continue to be important to Mexican culture. Marian devotion is evident in the frequency with which girls are named in honor of the Virgin. In fact, María (with or without an additional name) is the most common baptismal name for women in Mexico, and even men may be called José María. MARIANISMO AND THE VIRGIN MARY The marianismo ideal is modeled after the image of the Virgin Mary and connotes saintliness and submissiveness. Given the title Mother of God, the Virgin Mary is venerated and admired for being spiritually immaculate and eternally giving. This eventually created a conception of femininity in Mexico and in other Latin American countries—a combination of both a good and a bad woman. This is refl ected in the dichotomy of the virgin and the whore. The basis of the marianismo ideal is Mary’s acceptance of God’s will and her purity (virginity). In Mexico, where marianismo is strong, the Virgin Mary symbolizes the good mother in contrast to the bad woman Malinche, who was Cortés’s lover. Marianismo expects women to model themselves after Mary and to accept their roles as mothers and wives. Women should be pure, humble, emotional, kind, compliant, vulnerable, unassertive, and enduring of suffering. Women live in the shadow of their husbands and children and should support them continuously. This kind of attitude involves the expectation that women should tolerate certain behavior of men such as their aggressiveness, sexual infi delity, arrogance, stubbornness, and callousness. The expectations that a 230 Latin America, machismo and marianismo in woman should be an ideal wife and mother require her to be spiritually superior. MARIANISMO AS A STRATEGY Evelyn Stevens is credited for coining the term marianismo. Stevens turned marianismo into a strategy whereby women benefi t from the ideal of women as semidivine, morally superior, and spiritually stronger than men. The women’s movement led to the evolution of marianismo into a cult of feminine superiority. The power in marianismo comes from women’s ability to produce life. By tolerating the husband’s behavior and wickedness, women receive validation from society and from God. Men’s wickedness, therefore, is the necessary precondition of woman’s superior status. This means that to uphold their semidivine status, women should not attempt to avoid suffering and self-sacrifi ce. Instead, women make this suffering known and thus gain esteem and admiration from society. On the other hand, marianismo as a strategy is criticized by Tracy Ehlers, who criticized Stevens’s position on four grounds. First she criticized the idea that marianismo is a companion and complement to machismo. Second, she disagrees with the assumption that women are content with domesticity and the feminine power at home. Third, she points out that the marianismo ideal blames women for a man’s bad behavior because the women need that behavior to attain their status as wife and mother. Fourth, she argues that the marianismo ideal creates a universal model that encompasses all Latin American women. CHANGES IN THE MARIANISMO IDEAL The socialist revolution in Cuba led to changes in the marianismo ideals. The Virgin Mary was replaced by the ideal of the equal and working woman. The Caribbean island of Cuba was a Spanish colony until 1898, but after winning its independence, it became, in practice, a U.S. colony. The Cuban revolution began on January 1, 1959, when the revolutionary leader Fidel Castro forced the former dictator to leave the country. A few years later, Cuba proclaimed itself a socialist country, accompanying an economic blockade from the United States. These political changes involve the creation of the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC) in the early years of the revolution. The organization aimed to fulfi ll women’s rights in line with the revolutionary ideals. Today Cuba is the only country in Latin America with legalized abortion and free contraceptives. The Family Code in 1975 also established by law that men and women have equal responsibility in household work. The political changes in Cuba regarding gender are still juxtaposed with the traditional gender roles and the prevailing norms of heterosexuality and the nuclear family. The traditional values of women’s roles as mothers and wives as concerned with love, marriage, and the family are still present in Cuban socialist society. Women are still responsible for not getting pregnant. This implies that the mixture of machismo culture and radical changes toward socialism and equal rights continue to exist in the Cuban society. See also baroque culture in Latin America; Cuban War of Independence. Further reading: Enos, Richard, and Stephen Southern. Correctional Case Management. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1996; Gil, R. M., and I. Vazquez. The Maria Paradox: How Latinas Can Merge Old World Traditions With New World Self-Esteem. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1996; Lockhart, James. Early Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; Ramos, S. Profi le of Man and Culture in Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1962; Riding, A. Distant Neighbors. New York: Vintage Books, 1985. Amparo Pamela Fabe Latin America, positivism in Based on the writings of French philosopher and social reformer Auguste Comte, positivist doctrine swept large parts of urban Latin America in the late 19th century, from Mexico City to Buenos Aires, profoundly infl uencing intellectual currents, economic and political trends, state ideologies, forms of state organization, urban planning, immigration policies, literary styles, and related developments. Comte’s philosophy of positivism, an elaborate, opaque, and in some respects bizarre body of thought, built on the rationalism of the scientifi c revolution and Enlightenment to posit three stages in intellectual history: theological, metaphysical, and positive. The third stage, which in Comte’s view humanity was on the cusp of achieving, was characterized by direct empirical observation, scientifi c experimentation, and purely rational thought. In Latin America, positivism was appropriated by ruling liberal regimes to promote modernization Latin America, positivism in 231 through government by intellectually enlightened elites. In practice this meant the promotion of economic liberalism, which meant free trade, privatization of church and Indian lands, foreign investment, exportled growth, European immigration, and the adoption of modern technologies. It also meant the suppression of political liberalism in the forms of free speech, freedom of assembly, and other rights of citizenship. Positivist doctrine also dovetailed with the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and others, which divided humanity into racial hierarchies, with some races more suited to survival than others. In practice, this meant the promotion of racist ideologies positing white superiority and Indian, black, and “mixed-race” inferiority. Since positivism posited women’s irrationality and intellectual inferiority, it also reinforced gender inequalities. Emblematic here was the regime of Porfirio Díaz in Mexico, which adopted positivist doctrine under the banner of “Order and Progress,” a doctrine pursued via the policy prescriptions of his circle of advisers known as los científicos (loosely, “the scientific ones”). As leading Mexican científico Justo Sierra famously remarked, the path to national development might require “a little tyranny” along the way. In Brazil, positivism translated into active opposition to the reigning monarchy and to slavery, both of which were interpreted as primitive, antiquated, decidedly nonmodern institutions, especially by members of the military whose power was enhanced as a result of the Paraguayan War. The army’s overthrow of the monarchy in 1889 was followed by a string of military-supported technocratic governments deeply influenced by positivist thought. Positivism in Brazil also translated into active support of coffee cultivation and other forms of export production, emulation of things French, and state policies intended to promote European immigration in order to “whiten” the population. In Argentina, positivist doctrine found tangible expression in the revamping of the capital city of Buenos Aires in the 1890s to evoke the broad boulevards, parks, plazas, and stately buildings of Paris, prompting city boosters to dub their capital “the Paris of South America.” Similar facelifts transformed other South American capitals in the Parisian model, including Caracas (Venezuela), Santiago (Chile), and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Across much of Central and South America, elites actively promoted European immigration to improve their nations’ “racial stock,” strengthen links with Europe (especially France), and promote national modernization. These elite-led modernization efforts, in the name of “progress,” were accompanied by press censorship, rigged elections, political cronyism, and the suppression of political dissent, in the name of “order.” Positivism remained highly influential throughout much of Latin America until the ascendancy of populist politics in the 1910s and 1920s, though many transmuted vestiges and variants endured well into the 20th century. See also Latin America, economic and political liberalism in; Latin america, urbanism in. Further reading: Hale, Charles A. The Transformation of Liberalism in Late Nineteenth-Century Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990; Woodward, Ralph Lee. Positivism in Latin America, 1850–1900. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1971; Zea, Leopoldo. Positivism in Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1974. Michael J. Schroeder Latin America, urbanism in At independence in the 1820s, the vast majority of the inhabitants of Latin America and the Caribbean, probably more than 95 percent, lived in rural areas. From the early colonial period, cities, clustered mainly along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, had been considered by Spanish and Portuguese colonizers and the creole (American-born) elite as the prime locus of civilization and culture. As the crisis of political authority sparked by the 1807–08 Napoleonic invasion of Iberia intensified, the requirement of the liberal Spanish constitution of 1812 that concentrations of 1,000 persons or more establish town councils led to a dramatic rise in the number of officially incorporated towns and cities. By fragmenting political authority, the process of independence augmented the political and economic power of urban centers. Subnational regions developed principally in relation to primary and secondary cities. Examples can be seen in southeastern South America, with Buenos Aires and Montevideo dominating the coast, and Córdoba, Tucumán, and other cities dominating the interior. In 1820 Mexico City was Latin America’s largest city, with some 120,000 people, followed by Lima (Peru) at 53,000, Buenos Aires (Río de la Plata, later Argentina) at 40,000, and Bogotá (Colombia) at 30,000. 232 Latin America, urbanism in By mid-century, with populations rising and rural-urban migration intensifying, many large cities became increasingly unattractive, congested, and unhealthy. Sanitary conditions were often abysmal, with open sewers, lack of potable water, unpaved streets that often turned to muddy quagmires, chronic poverty, and disease emerging as major problems for both national and municipal governments. Most urban cores, which were by colonial era design a central plaza surrounded by a church, government buildings, and elite residences, had become less livable and less desirable, prompting many wealthy residents to relocate to urban fringes. The deteriorating material conditions of most cities confl icted with an increasingly infl uential elite discourse that portrayed cities as the seat of civilization, modernity, and national progress, as opposed to the barbarism and backwardness of the countryside. Such a situation is exemplifi ed in the writings of the Argentine intellectual and statesman Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. Especially from around 1870 this urban squalor and elite discourse on modernization and national progress combined with rising European immigration and expanding export production to prompt national and municipal governments to begin the process of urban renewal, setting in motion new programs to that effect. As a result of these economic, political, demographic, and cultural pressures, in the late 19th century virtually every large city in Latin America underwent a major rebuilding effort. Emblematic were the urban revitalization programs in Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Rio de Janeiro, Valparaíso, Mexico City, and Bogotá. Paris in particular became the model for what a city ought to be. In Buenos Aires, for instance, the city center was razed, and in its stead were built broad treelined boulevards, parks, plazas, stately buildings, and cultural centers like theaters and opera houses. Electric streetlights replaced gas lamps; underground sewage and water systems were installed; paved avenues replaced dirt streets and alleys; automobiles and electric trolleys displaced horses and bullcarts. By the turn of the century, city boosters were touting Buenos Aires as the “Paris of South America.” Similar efforts were undertaken in cities across the continent. These and other cities grew rapidly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1880 Buenos Aires was home to around 300,000 people; on the eve of World War I, that fi gure reached 1.5 million. In 1890 the population of São Paulo stood at 64,000; a decade later it surpassed 240,000. In 1880 Santiago was inhabited by around 160,000 people; by 1910 the number had increased to 400,000. Mexico City’s population rose from 200,000 in 1874 to nearly 500,000 in 1910. By 1900 Montevideo housed around one-third of Uruguay’s population of 900,000, making it the world’s largest national capital city relative to population. Similarly rapid growth marked Rio de Janeiro, Valparaíso, Lima, Quito, Guayaquil, Caracas, Bogotá, Havana, and other national capitals and port cities. Notably, by 1900, all but a handful of Latin America’s largest urban centers lay on the coast, refl ecting the region’s historic and growing reliance on export production. The last decades of the 19th century also saw many smaller cities grow rapidly, from Monterrey (Mexico), Guatemala City (Guatemala), Managua (Nicaragua), Tegucigalpa (Honduras), Medellín, Barranquilla, and Cartagena (Colombia), to Córdoba, Mendoza, and Salta (Argentina). By the dawn of the 20th century, between 10 and 20 percent of Latin America’s population of some 60 million resided in cities, a percentage that would grow dramatically in the coming decades; by the end of the century, around three-quarters of Latin America’s population of 520 million was urban. See also Latin America, economic and political liberalism in; Latin America, export economies in; Latin America, positivism in. Further reading: Almandoz, Arturo, ed. Planning Latin America’s Capital Cities, 1850–1950. New York: Routledge, 2002; Beezley, William H., and Colin M. MacLachlin. Latin America: The Peoples and Their History. New York: Harcourt Brace, 2000; Joseph, Gilbert M., and Mark D. Szuchman. I Saw a City Invincible: Urban Portraits of Latin America. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1996. Michael J. Schroeder League of Three Emperors After the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck united Germany in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, he desired peace in which the new unifi ed Germany could mature and prosper. With France effectively neutralized by the war and the Paris Commune uprising in 1871 that followed, Bismarck set to make peace with Germany’s two traditional rivals in central Europe, Austria-Hungary and Russia. It had only been in 1866 that Bismarck’s Prussia had defeated Austria-Hungary for leadership of League of Three Emperors 233 the German peoples, and Bismarck was anxious that hostilities not be renewed. Bismarck’s solution to this problem was the League of the Three Emperors, or the Dreikaiserbund. The emperors were Wilhelm I of Germany, Franz Josef of Austria, and Czar Alexander II of Russia. All three empires desired stability for diplomatic and domestic reasons. Anarchist and communist groups, inspired by the Paris Commune, were becoming internal security problems for all three empires, which needed to focus their energies at home. Despite these efforts, Czar Alexander II was still killed by anarchists in Russia in 1881. Bismarck’s plans were helped by foreign ministers Julius Andrassy of Austria and Prince Alexander Gorchakov of Russia. Bismarck realized that France was seething in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War. Thus for Bismarck, the paramount reason for soliciting the League of Three Emperors was that, should Germany become involved in another war with France, it would not have to fear either Russia or Austria joining in an alliance with France against the Germans. In addition, all three empires were concerned about the continuing disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Since both Austria and Russia had ambitions in the Balkans, both were concerned that their desire to profi t from Turkish misfortune did not lead to a clash between them. The League of Three Emperors, ratifi ed by the three parties in 1873, was essentially a secret agreement, and none of the three signatories were in any way anxious for the other Great Powers in Europe to learn about it. In 1875 the new league had its fi rst major test when the Christians of the Balkans rebelled against their Turkish overlords. When the rebellion began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sultan Abdul Hamid II reacted with a savagery that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Christians. The atrocities caused the rebellion to spread throughout the Balkans. In addition to having designs on the Balkans, Russia also embraced the philosophy of Pan-Slavism, which held that all Slavs were mystically united as a brotherhood. Furthermore, they all professed the same Christian Orthodox faith. Hence it was that Russia saw it as its duty to intervene to save the Slavs in the Balkans, and in April 1877 Czar Alexander II declared war on the Ottoman Empire. Although British prime minister William Gladstone condemned the Turkish atrocities, he was keenly aware of the change in the European balance of power should the Russians win the war. Gladstone offered naval support to the Turks, as well as a British squadron anchored near Constantinople in February 1878. For a while, war between England and Russia seemed imminent. Wanting the war to end before British intervention, the Russians forced a victor’s peace on the Turks at San Stefano on March 3, 1878. Austro-Hungarian foreign minister Count Andrassy felt the settlement was adverse to future Austrian designs on the Balkans, and a potential Russo-Austrian crisis loomed. Bismarck could see his League of Three Emperors quickly dissolving into a possible Russo-Austrian War and hurriedly called for all parties to meet at Berlin. The Congress of Berlin, which met from June to July 1878, managed to avoid a European war, but profoundly soured Russia because it was forced to disgorge much of the territory it had won from the Turks at San Stefano. Consequently, Russia withdrew from the League of Three Emperors. Concerned now of possible hostilities with Russia, Bismarck signed an alliance with Austria in 1879, which became known as the Dual Alliance. Both countries realized the need to lure Russia back into an alliance. This took place in 1881, with what could be called the Second League of Three Emperors. The terms of the treaty were specifi c and took into account the changing European situation since the fi rst league of 1873. Although the three empires intended at the time that the treaty would be permanent, the continuing changes in the European situation were continually changing their alliance. In 1890 Bismarck was replaced as German chancellor by the new German emperor Wilhelm II. From there the terrible slide toward World War I began. However, when seen in retrospect, the efforts of Bismarck, Andrassy, and Gorchakov in creating the fi rst league of Three Emperors in 1873, and the league’s rebirth in 1881, did secure almost 20 years of peace in which, without foreign wars or domestic insurrections, the countries emerged into what ever after would be referred to as the “Age of Progress.” To accomplish this was no mean feat for any diplomats to achieve. See also Afghan Wars, First and Second; Anglo- Russian rivalry; Franco-Prussian War and the Treaty of Frankfurt. Further reading: Finkel, Caroline. Osman’s Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Perseus Books, 2006; Horne, Alistair. The Fall of Paris: The Siege and the Commune 1870–71. London: Pan Macmillan, 2002; Palmer, Alan. The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Barnes 234 League of Three Emperors and Noble, 1994; Showalter, Dennis. The Wars of German Unification. London: A Hodder Arnold Publication, 2004. John F. Murphy, Jr. Leo XIII (1810–1903) Roman Catholic pope Pope Leo XIII was born Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi on March 2, 1810, in Carpineto and died on July 20, 1903, in Rome. Young Raffaele was sent at age eight to study at the Jesuit school at Viterbo, where he attained a doctorate of theology in 1832 and was ordained a priest on December 31, 1837. In January 1843 he was appointed papal nuncio (diplomat) to Brussells, Belgium, and elevated to archbishop of Damiata, Belgium, on February 19, 1843. He worked with the Belgium royalty to establish Catholic schools in Belgium, a controversial move for both parties. Later, Raffaele was made bishop of Perugia. He was made a cardinal by Pope Pius IX, appointed camerlengo (head of the papal household) in August 1877, and then elected pope in 1878. As pope, he was active in diplomatic circles by courting relationships with France, Germany, Russia, the United States, and the nations of South America. Pope Leo XIII strained relations between the Holy See and Great Britain by restoring the Scottish hierarchy of the church, declaring all Anglican ordinations invalid, and elevating John Henry Newman, a convert from Anglicanism, to the cardinalate. Within the church, he resolved the schism with the Armenian Church and strengthened the Ruthenian Church. He established national colleges within Vatican City, expanded the holdings and services of the Vatican library and secret archives, and built the Vatican Observatory. He wrote encyclicals against Americanism, Freemasonry, and socialism, and for devotions to the rosary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. His landmark encyclical Rerum novarum set out Catholic principles on the economic relationship between labor and capital. Further reading: Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002; Pham, John-Peter. Heirs of the Fisherman: Behind the Scenes of Papal Death and Succession. 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 Leopold II (1835–1909) king of Belgium Upon his accession in 1865, Leopold decided Belgium should be beautiful, rich, secure, and more powerful. Leopold II 235 Leo XIII was active in diplomatic circles, courting relationships with western Europe, Russia, and the United States. Accordingly, he transformed Brussels and Ostend, built monuments and public works, backed Belgian enterprises abroad, gained fortifi cations, and, on his deathbed, signed an army reform. Additionally, since the idea of European expansion was impossible, Leopold determined that Belgium should seek colonial expansion elsewhere. Leopold created allegedly humanitarian associations and sent H. M. Stanley to establish stations on the Congo River. These efforts helped Belgium gain infl uence in the Congo. Additionally, since no great power wished another to gain the vast Congo basin, Leopold used the apparent weakness of Belgium to become the sole proprietor of his Congo Free State after the 1884–85 Congress of Berlin. Leopold as king-sovereign enlarged it, gaining Orientale Province (Haut-Zaïre), effective control of mineral-rich Katanga (Shaba), and eastern regions, eliminating East African slavers. However, Britain blocked Leopold’s drive to the Nile, preventing further expansion. Leopold never visited the Congo and did not envision Africans as real. For a decade, he was chronically short of funds to administer the state and its army. Tenacious, clever, and unscrupulous, he extorted a great deal from Belgium. He built a railway around cataracts to render the Congo River navigable to the sea but otherwise avoided development. In 1891 he declared all “vacant land” (including fallow fi elds and hunting grounds) state property. In 1892 he created state lands that included about half the Congo. There, aside from two concessions, profi ts went solely to the state’s expenses. As world demand for rubber rose, the Congo became profi table, and greed overtook Leopold’s concern for Belgium. In 1896 he created large Crown lands in the Congo, whose profi ts accrued directly to him rather than to the state. Demands for more rubber led to abuses, including mutilation and murder of the indigenous population. Criticism mounted in English-speaking countries. Ultimately, the outcry became so intense and the abuses so well-documented that in 1908, Belgium, to end abuses, reluctantly took the Congo away from Leopold. Further reading: Ascherson, Neal. The King Incorporated: Leopold the Second in the Age of Trusts. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1963; Emerson, Barbara. Leopold II of the Belgians, King of Colonialism. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979. Sally Marks Lewis and Clark Expedition When Thomas Jefferson became president of the United States, he was determined to fulfi ll one of his most cherished dreams: obtaining accurate knowledge of the Far West. In his message to Congress of January 18, 1803, nine months before the United States acquired the Louisiana Purchase from France, Jefferson requested funds to outfi t an expedition for the purposes of gathering scientifi c and geographic information about the trans-Mississippi West and for establishing diplomatic and commercial relations with the Indians of the region. Jefferson, like other Americans of his era, was also interested in determining whether or not there was a viable water route across the continent that connected with the Pacifi c Ocean. With the approval of Congress in hand, Jefferson secured the services of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. Both men were experienced army veterans and seasoned frontiersmen. They assembled a welltrained Corps of Discovery, one of whom was Clark’s African-American slave, York. With wilderness gear, boats, and scientifi c equipment, they began their jour- 236 Lewis and Clark Expedition A clever and unscrupulous ruler, Leopold II of Belgium used the resources of the Congo to increase his own wealth. ney by ascending the Missouri River from the vicinity of St. Louis on May 14, 1804. The party wintered with the Mandan Indians in proximity to the Knife and Missouri Rivers in what is now the state of North Dakota. There, Lewis and Clark obtained the services of Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian trapper, and Sacagawea, his young Shoshone wife. Since both spoke Shoshone and had some knowledge of the Hidatsa language, they were invaluable as interpreters and intermediaries between the Corps and the Indians. By the following spring, the expedition had reached the three forks of the Missouri, which they named the Jefferson, the Gallatin, and the Madison. After a perilous trek across the Rocky Mountains, they descended the Snake and Columbia Rivers and reached the shores of the Pacific Ocean in November 1805. The expedition erected Fort Clatsop and remained there until spring. Returning over much of their original route, they arrived at St. Louis on September 23, 1806. The party had traversed some 8,000 miles and had journeyed for well over two years. The hardships they had endured were largely due to the nature of the terrain they traversed, weather conditions, physical and mental fatigue, encounters with wild animals, and accidents. With the exception of the Blackfeet and the Sioux, their relations with Indians were relatively peaceful and beneficial. They returned with a wealth of information about the Indians and the topography of the Far West. The knowledge they gathered about the flora and fauna of the region proved to be invaluable for the traders, trappers, and settlers who followed. Their explorations also helped to affirm the right of the United States to Oregon Country. The journals of Lewis and Clark have been published in many editions. They offer vivid descriptions of the explorers’s encounters with the unexpected and relate their struggles with their day-to-day routines. The journals constitute an American saga. See also Native American policies in the United States and Canada. Further reading: Ambrose, Stephen E. Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996; Jones, Landon Y. William Clark and the Shaping of the West. New York: Hill & Wang, 2004. Louis B. Gimelli Liberian colonization After the American Revolution, many Americans, black and white, anguished over the continuing existence of slavery in the new republic of liberty. One proposed solution—colonization—attracted supporters at the highest levels. The American Colonization Society (ACS) played a key role in slavery politics before, during, and even after the Civil War. Its successes, although limited, forever changed the United States and West Africa. The ACS was founded in 1816 by leading politicians, including Kentucky slaveholder Henry Clay and Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster. Over the years, other prominent Americans, including Francis Scott Key, author of the “Star-Spangled Banner,” and several presidents supported the cause. The ACS’s main idea was this: “Slavery is a brutal and inefficient labor system. To end it, while protecting the interests of slaveholders and free white workers, we need to remove freed black people who would likely become a burden on American society.” In fact, states that abolished slavery often made it very difficult for freedmen and -women to stay in their communities as free people, Although some proponents of colonization envisioned setting aside colonies for former slaves in North America, the ACS quickly focused on “returning” to Africa people who had been kidnapped into slavery there, years or even centuries earlier, and by now were mostly Christian English-speaking African Americans. In 1821 the ACS sent naval officer Robert Stockton to a region of West Africa already occupied by 16 tribal groups. There he “negotiated with a pen in one hand, and a drawn pistol in the other.” The new colony was named Liberia, for liberty, and its capital became Monrovia, named in honor of President James Monroe, who provided federal funds for the ACS venture. As slavery politics grew more divisive, especially after Virginian Nat Turner’s abortive slave revolt in 1831, the ACS project was attacked from many sides. Abolitionists viewed Liberian relocation as deportation—a racist way to deal with slavery and race problems. Said abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, a former colonizationist, “I was then blind; I now see.” Deep South slaveholders suspected colonization was a trick designed to end slavery entirely. Few African Americans were attracted to Liberia, despite hopes for genuine independence. Liberia’s deadly malaria killed thousands. Unfamiliar plants and animals made farming difficult. American interlopers faced hostility from indigenous residents. Yet, threatening events Liberian colonization 237 like Turner’s rebellion and the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott decision of the chaotic 1850s led to surges in emigration. Even black abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass softened his opposition. By 1860, almost 11,0000 African Americans had emigrated. More would do so when post–Civil War promises remained unfulfi lled. Liberia’s earliest settlers were mainly freed blacks from the Upper South who had already gained literacy and work skills. These founding families would become an enduring ruling class who dominated Liberian politics and its economy, especially after Liberia declared itself independent in 1847 under an American-style constitution. Later, an infl ux of new African-American settlers, many who had gained freedom only when their masters died, became a social second tier, while African natives were relegated to the lowest social rung. Into the 21st century, lingering class and color antagonisms have destabilized Liberia, sparking civil confl ict in the nation and its region. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; slave revolts in the Americas. Further reading: Burin, Eric. Slavery and the Peculiar Solution: A History of the American Colonization Society. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005; Clegg III, Claude A. The Price of Liberty: African Americans and the Making of Liberia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Marsha E. Ackermann Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang) (1823–1901) Chinese statesman and diplomat Li Hongzhang came from Anhui Province, received the highest academic degree in 1847, and joined the government. When the army of the Taiping rebels reached Anhui in 1853, Li and his father returned home and organized a militia, serving well under various local offi cials. In 1858 he joined his patron and teacher Zeng Guofan (Tseng Kuo-fan), the most successful civilian of the Qing (Ch’ing) government, in fi ghting the Taiping Rebellion. In 1860 Zeng sent Li to his home province to organize a large militia called the Huai Army (Huai being another name for Anhui). In 1862 this army was ordered to Shanghai where Li found an ad hoc force trained and led by Westerners defending the city against the rebels. This unit, known as the Ever-Victorious Army, was later led by an Englishman named Charles Gordon, called Chinese Gordon due to his involvement in China. Between 1862 and 1864 Li’s Huai Army, stiffened by the Ever-Victorious Army, cleared Jiangsu (Kiangsu) Province of the rebels. In coordination with the Hunan or Xiang (Hsiang) Army of his mentor Zeng, the Zhejiang (Chekiang) Army of Zho Zongtang (Tso Tsung-t’ang) and other units fi nished off the Taiping Rebellion that had devastated southern and central China for over a decade. Zeng was next appointed to deal with the Nian (Nien) Rebellion that still raged along the Huai River valley, but age and other factors made him ineffective, and it was Li, as imperial commissioner, who fi nished them off in 1868. Li served as governor or governor-general of many provinces between the 1860s and the 1890s, when he and like-minded colleagues forged policies that rebuilt and revitalized a ruined economy, fostered Western learning, and adopted new techniques to strengthen China. These decades became known as the era of the Tongzhi Restoration (after the name of the emperor) and the measures were called the Self-Strengthening Movement. Although they gave the Qing dynasty a new lease on life, they proved inadequate in the end because they were piecemeal due to the lack of central government direction under the evil and corrupt dowager empress Cixi (Tz’u-hsi). Li also served concurrently in many other positions, notably as diplomat dealing with Western nations. He was repeatedly called on to deal with disputes involving Christian missionaries and their activities and on international trade issues. These responsibilities made him acutely aware of China’s weakness and vulnerability and, therefore, its need to modernize. He also realized the need to make concessions in dealing with European powers and Japan. Such policies made him unpopular with the conservatives, who, oblivious of international affairs, advocated tough and unsustainable stands. Cixi’s ignorant and vacillating policies got China involved in repeated disasters, namely the Sino-French War, Sino-Japanese War, and the Boxer Rebellion. Each time Li had the no-win task of damage control to salvage what he could. Li Hongzhang’s half-century of public service made him the last survivor among the leaders of late Qing China. See also Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline. Further reading: Feuerwerker, Albert, et al., eds. Approaches to Modern Chinese History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967; Hummel, A., ed. Eminent Chinese of Ch’ing Period. Washington D.C.: Government Printing 238 Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang) Offi ce, 1944; Spector, Stanley. Li Hung-Chang and the Huai Army: A Study in Nineteenth Century Chinese Regionalism. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1964. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Lincoln, Abraham (1809–1865) American president Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, in a log cabin on Nolin Creek in Hardin (now Larue) County, Kentucky. His father was a carpenter and farmer who owned three farms in Kentucky. His family moved to Indiana in December 1816, in part because his parents did not approve of slavery, which was legal in Kentucky but not in Indiana. His family moved again in 1830, this time to Illinois. In 1831 Lincoln left home and moved to New Salem, Illinois. In 1832 he ran unsuccessfully for election to the Illinois General Assembly. With the outbreak of the Black Hawk War, he volunteered for military service and was elected captain of his rifl e company, but he saw no fi ghting. Lincoln ran for offi ce again in 1834 and was elected, serving four terms in the General Assembly as a member of the Whig Party. During this time, Lincoln also studied law and in 1836 was licensed to practice. He moved to Springfi eld, Illinois, in 1837 and started practicing law with John Todd Stuart. He married Mary Todd from Kentucky in 1842, and they had four sons, only one of whom survived to adulthood. Lincoln was elected to the U.S. Congress and served from 1847 to 1849. While in Congress, he opposed the Mexican-American War because he felt that President James Polk had violated the Constitution. He also supported the Wilmot Proviso, which would have prohibited slavery in territory gained from the war. Once his term was completed, he returned to his law practice in Springfi eld. Lincoln opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act that allowed for the possibility of slavery spreading to the new territories in the Union. The act was sponsored by Democratic senator Stephen Douglas. Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and in 1858 ran against Douglas for the Senate. The two conducted a series of debates covering a number of issues, including slavery. The debates gained Lincoln national exposure, but he lost the election to Douglas. Lincoln’s exposure made him a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860. The primary Republican candidate was William H. Seward, but Seward was unacceptable to several keys states. Lincoln was the second most popular candidate and more acceptable then Seward, facts which ultimately won Lincoln the nomination. With a split in the Democratic Party, Lincoln won the election and took offi ce in March 1861. Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together, and in his inaugural speech talked of conciliation, but it was too late. Seven states had already seceded from the Union, and when Lincoln ordered a ship to take supplies to the federal garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, the government of South Carolina ordered the fort to be attacked. This action, on April 12, 1861, offi cially started the American Civil War. With the Union defeat at Bull Run on July 21, 1861, the war looked to continue for years, and Lincoln’s inability to fi nd a capable general exacerbated the Union’s problems. One of Lincoln’s major concerns was the involvement of Europe, particularly Britain and France, in the war. Britain saw the war as a chance to check the growth of the United States, but was unwilling to commit men or material without reassurance that the Confederacy would win. Intially, Lincoln’s position had been the preservation of the Union. However, as the war progressed, the issue of slavery became more and more important. Lincoln believed that while the Constitution protected slavery during peace, in war it was a different matter. As such, he drafted the Emancipation Proclamation. However, he was concerned that issuing the proclamation would be seen as a sign of desperation if he did so following the continuing losses suffered by the Union army. It was not until the Union victory at Antietam in Maryland on September 17, 1862, that Lincoln got his chance. While not a decisive victory, the battle did force General Robert E. Lee to retreat to Virginia, and Lincoln took the opportunity to release the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22. With this, Britain determined that it would be best served by staying out of the confl ict. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states in rebellion; it was not until the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that slavery was fully abolished. The Amendment was ratifi ed on December 18, 1865. The Emancipation Proclamation was worded specifi cally to exclude border states (such as Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri) that were still loyal to the Union but where slavery was still legal. While Lincoln could be careful not to alienate certain groups, he was also willing to do what he felt was necessary to defend the Union. To that end, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, in limited areas and then on September Lincoln, Abraham 239 24, 1862, throughout the nation. It is believed that his administration made as many as 13,000 arrests without cause. He endured harsh criticism from other politicians and newspapers, including being called a tyrant. It was not until 1864 that the war fi nally turned in favor of the Union when Lincoln brought General Ulysses S. Grant to Washington from the Western Theater to command all the armies of the Union. Grant proved a capable general and was able to push the Union army forward against the Confederacy. With the election of 1864, the Democratic Party decided to run former general George B. McClellan against Lincoln. The only issues that the Democrats could use against Lincoln were his supposed tyrannical policies and the fact that the war was progressing very slowly and weariness was setting in around the country. With Grant’s campaign to take Richmond, followed by General William T. Sherman’s capture of Atlanta, Georgia, on September 2, 1864, and then General Philip Sheridan’s destruction of part of Lee’s army in the Shenandoah Valley, the war was obviously nearing its conclusion, and Lincoln won reelection in November 1864. With the war nearing its end, Lincoln began to look toward what would happen after the war. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln expressed a desire to reform the Union, “With malice toward none, with charity for all.” But whatever plan he might have had for the restoration of the South and the reformation of the American Union died with him on April 14, 1865, when he was assassinated at Ford’s Theatre by John Wilkes Booth, just fi ve days after Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House. See also Reconstruction in the United States. Further reading: Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995; Gienapp, William E. Abra- 240 Lincoln, Abraham The last reception at the White House before the president’s assassination: Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln greet Union generals, cabinet members, and other guests. ham Lincoln and Civil War America: A Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; Keneally, Thomas. Abraham Lincoln. New York: Lipper/Viking Book, 2003; Oates, Stephen B. With Malice Towards None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Sandburg, Carl. Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years. Fairfi eld, IA: Reader’s Digest Association, 1970; Thomas, Benjamin Platt. Abraham Lincoln: A Biography. New York: Knopf, 1952. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Lin Zexu (Lin Tse-hsu) (1785–1850) Chinese statesman Lin Zexu, the son of a teacher from Fujian (Fukien) Province, received the jinshi (chin-shih) degree, the highest in the Chinese educational system, in 1811 and entered government service. He served with distinction and gained the popular accolade “Lin, Clear as the Heavens” for being just and incorruptible. He became governor-general of Hunan and Hubei (Hupei) Provinces in 1837, where he had notable success in implementing anti-opium laws and also took steps to cure addicts of their habits. Opium had been imported to China since the late seventh century as a medicine. It became a recreational drug after the 17th century, and as addiction spread, the government became concerned. The law that banned opium smoking was issued in 1729; another law in 1796 totally banned its importation and cultivation, but neither had any effect, and increasing amounts were smuggled into China, mostly by British traders. By the early 19th century, the opium problem had caused an economic, public health, and moral crisis for China, but its cultivation and sale under the British in Bengal (India) had become a lucrative source of revenue for the British treasury. In 1838 Emperor Daoguang (Tao-kuang) ordered a full-scale debate on methods to deal with the opium problem. One school favored legalization, taxing, and controlling its access. Another group advocated strict prohibition; Lin was among them, and because of his exemplary record, he was summoned to Beijing (Peking) for consultation. He was then appointed Imperial Commissioner, with plenipotentiary powers to proceed to Canton to stamp out the evil. Arriving in Canton in early 1839, where 30,000 chests of the drug were imported annually and where opium shops were as numerous as gin shops in contemporary London, Lin fi rst dealt with the Chinese. He arrested corrupt offi cials who had not enforced the laws; confi scated smoking paraphernalia; closed opium shops; and made students, teachers, merchants, and civic leaders sign bonds to obey the law. Next, Lin ordered foreign merchants to hand over their stocks of opium and sign bonds not to trade in it in the future. Those who did would be allowed to trade in legitimate merchandise, while those who refused had their places of trade embargoed. He wrote a letter to Queen Victoria of Great Britain exhorting her to rein in evil merchants from her country whose greed infl icted such harm on the Chinese. Realizing his implacable resolve, British Superintendent of Trade Charles Elliot handed over 20,283 chests of opium (however, he refused to sign a bond for future non-importation), which Lin publicly destroyed. Trade with Britain resumed in May 1839. Lin was at the peak of his power. But diplomatic, legal, and commercial problems between China and Britain remained unresolved. The spark that began the fi rst Anglo-Chinese Opium War occurred in early 1840 over the death of a Chinese citizen in a brawl with some Englishmen and Elliot’s subsequent refusal to hand over the murderer for trial. Lin then ordered stoppage of trade with Britain. British victories led to Lin’s dismissal. He was sent to Ili in Xinjiang (Sinkiang) in northwestern China, where he served with distinction, opening up over 500,000 acres of land for cultivation between 1842 and 1845. He later served as governor-general of Shaanxi (Shensi) and Gansu (Kansu) Provinces in 1846 and of Yunnan and Guizhou (Kweichow) Provinces from 1847 to 1848. Lin was among the fi rst Chinese offi cials to become interested in Western sciences, weaponry, and maritime defenses and began programs to translate Western books into Chinese. Further reading: Fairbank, John K., ed. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 10, Part 1, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978; Hsin-pao Chang. Commissioner Lin and the Opium War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964; Hummel, Arthur W., ed. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1944; Waley, Arthur. The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1958. Jiu-hwa Lo Upshur Lin Zexu (Lin Tse-hsu) 241 literature (1750–1900) During the period 1750–1900, a large increase in literacy and reduced costs in printing and publishing led to large numbers of books being published. This in turn resulted in the establishment of public and private libraries around the world, which led to even more people having access to these books. The introduction of better house lighting, leading up to electric lights, also created a very favorable environment for reading. In Britain the literary style was changing from the Augustan age, which had been seen through the works of Joseph Addison, Daniel Defoe, Sir Richard Steele, and Jonathan Swift. Henry Fielding (1707–54) wrote his last novel, Amelia (1751), shortly before going to Lisbon, Portugal, where he died. With the Augustan representing what was seen as the golden age of Rome, it was the period when the Grand Tour started. This idea encouraged wealthy young Britons to travel around Europe seeing the famous sites. With the emergence of Britain as a world power after the Seven Years’ War (1756–63), British dominance of North America and the Caribbean was assured, and France seemed unlikely to pose a challenge to the British for some time to come. The emergence of the British Empire in Africa and India was also leading to increased wealth and the encouragement of the expeditions that took place in the latter decades of the 18th century. Within the reading public there was a great demand for travel literature, with the books by Captain James Cook (1728–79) and Admiral William Bligh (1754–1817), among others, selling well in Britain. Books by French, German, and other explorers and travelers were also translated into numbers of languages, further fueling the curiosity of readers. By the time Bligh’s account of the mutiny on the Bounty was on sale, the euphoria from the Seven Years’ War had died down, Britain having lost many of the American colonies with its defeat in the American Revolution. Important writers during this period include the philosopher David Hume (1711–76), novelist Laurence Sterne (1713–68), and Horace Walpole (1717–97). The economist Adam Smith (1723–90) was author of the best-seller The Wealth of Nations (1776), with philosophical works by John Stuart Mill (1806– 73) also being popular. Mention must also be made of Scotland’s national poet, Robert Burns (1759–96), and Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709–84) and his biographer James Boswell (1740–95). The 1780s and 1790s became known as the romantic period, with the emergence of the Lake Poets. William Wordsworth (1770–1850), composer of The Prelude; Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834); and poet and writer Robert Southey (1774–1843) brought with them both the views of the European Enlightenment, along with a reaction against the industrial revolution and urbanism. Wordsworth also explored nature, and in 1798 the first nature writer in the modern tradition, Gilbert White, published his The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne. The late 1790s and early 1800s were largely a period of isolation and introspection for British literature, with Britons not able to embark on their Grand Tour anymore, owing to the Napoleonic Wars, although some did manage brief visits in the period just after the signing of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. Two other authors who sold many copies of their books include Thomas Paine (1737– 1809), author of The Rights of Man (1791–92), and his great adversary, Edmund Burke (1729–97), author of Reflections on the French Revolution (1790), which was read all over Europe. Many of the other writers of the period, such as Jane Austen (1775–1817), author of Sense and Sensibility (1811) and Pride and Prejudice (1813), set all their work in England. Sir Walter Scott (1771–1832), author of The Lady of the Lake (1810), Ivanhoe (1819), and The Talisman (1825), wrote a very large number of works of fiction, poetry, history, drama, and essays. His Waverley novels were usually set around Scottish historical and folkloric themes, and this vast output essentially represented the introduction of the historical novel to a large reading public. This was followed by hugely popular but now largely forgotten historical novelist W. H. Ainsworth (1805–82). Toward the end of the Napoleonic Wars, there was a second generation of romantic poets that included Lord Byron (1788–1824); Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792– 1822), author of Prometheus Unbound (1818–19); and John Keats (1795–1821). All heavily influenced by Wordsworth and the other Lake Poets, Byron’s poetry was clearly influenced by his time in Europe, which would have been impossible a decade earlier. Indeed Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, one of Byron’s most famous poems, was about a young man’s adventures on the European continent. Having to flee England after allegations surfaced of his incestuous affair with his half sister Augusta Leigh, Byron met Shelley and his wife, Mary Shelley, at Geneva, Switzerland. They collaborated, and there are certainly some similarities between the poetry of Byron and Shelley, two free thinkers whose lives had scandalized many 242 literature (1750–1900) in Britain. Byron was later to take up the cause of Greek independence, which resulted in his death in 1824. The next great breakthrough in English literature is the Victorian era, when the British Empire and its power and infl uence dominated much of the world, developing much of the new technology and initiating social reforms. This brought forth an avalanche of literary talent, the work of Charles Dickens (1812–70) being perhaps the most memorable. Famous British writers of the period include Anne, Charlotte, and Emily Brontë; Samuel Butler (1835–1902), author of The Way of All Flesh, published posthumously in 1903; Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881), author of The French Revolution (1837) and Sartor Resartus (1833–34); Wilkie Collins (1824–89), author of The Woman in White (1860) and The Moonstone (1868), which T. S. Eliot called “the fi rst, the longest and the best of modern English detective novels”; Arthur Conan Doyle (1859–1930), creator of Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson; Joseph Conrad (born Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski, 1857–1924), author of Lord Jim (1900); Charles Dickens (1812–70), author of Oliver Twist (1837–39), Nicholas Nickleby (1838–39), The Old Curiosity Shop (1840–41), David Copperfi eld (1849–50), Bleak House (1852–53), A Tale of Two Cities (1859), and Great Expectations (1860–61); George Eliot (pseudonym for Mary Ann Evans, 1819–80), author of The Mill on the Floss (1860) and Middlemarch (1871–72); Thomas Hardy (1840–1928), author of The Mayor of Casterbridge (1886) and Jude the Obscure (1896); Thomas Hughes (1822–96), author of Tom Brown’s Schooldays (1856); Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936), author of Barrack Room Ballads (1892), The Seven Seas (1896), and the two Jungle Books (1894–95); Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–94), author of Treasure Island (1883) and Kidnapped (1886); William Makepeace Thackeray (1811–63), author of Henry Esmond (1852); and Anthony Trollope (1815–82), author of Barchester Towers (1857) and many other works. Several other popular Victorian writers include poet and engraver William Blake (1757–1827), Elizabeth Browning (1806–61) and Robert Browning (1812–89), playwright John Drinkwater (1882–1937), best-selling boys’ adventure writer and journalist G. A. Henty (1832–1902), poet and craftsman William Morris (1834–96), poet Alexander Pope (1677–1744), and Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–92). There were also an increasing number of books about foreign countries and lands. Thomas Stamford Raffl es (1781–1826) wrote of his time in Java, and books on Africa by explorers such as Dr. David Livingstone (1813–73) and H. M. Stanley (1841–1904) interested many people in central Africa. Quite a number of these books sold within days of their release, with On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), by Charles Darwin (1809–82), selling out on its fi rst day. Following the creation of the United States, there was the emergence of a new literary trend, also written in English but fi rmly with its own accent and eye. Again, like this period in Britain, there was a rich mix of fi ction, drama, adventure, history, and science. Important American writers included Stephen Crane (1871–1900), author of the Civil War story The Red Badge of Courage (1893); philosopher and statesman Benjamin Franklin (1706–90); Joel Chandler Harris (1848–1908), creator of Brer Rabbit and author of Uncle Remus; Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804–64); Herman Melville (1819–91), author of Moby-Dick (1851); novelist Francis Parkman (1823–93), author of The Oregon Trail: Sketches of Prairie and Rocky- Mountain Life (1849); Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811– 96), author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852); essayist and poet Henry David Thoreau (1817–62); and poet Walt Whitman (1819–92). Historian William H. Prescott (1796–1859) produced America’s fi rst “scientifi c histories,” being the author of The History of the Conquest of Mexico (1843) and History of the Conquest of Peru (1847). Australia, despite its size, had a small population. Because of its unique history, it developed a different literary tradition, with important Australian writers including Marcus Clarke (1846–81), author of His Natural Life (1874, subsequently reissued as For the term of your natural life); Rolf Boldrewood (pseudonym for Thomas Alexander Browne, 1826–1915), author of The Squatter’s Dream (1875) and Robbery Under Arms (1888); and W. H. Fitchett (1841–1928), author of many books on the British Empire. In other languages, again with the increase of literacy levels, new printing techniques, and the availability of cheap paper and newspapers, there was a vast output of literature. France enjoyed one of its greatest periods of cultural progress. The early work from the 1750s was heavily infl uenced by the Enlightenment. The major French work of this period was the Encyclopédie of Denis Didreot and Jean d’Alembert, published between 1751 and 1765. Many French writers literature (1750–1900) 243 of this period were heavily infl uenced by French historical themes, especially the Napoleonic Wars and earlier confl icts. Alexandre Dumas (1803–70) set his The Man in the Iron Mask during the reign of Louis XIV, and his The Count of Monte Cristo covered events that followed a brief visit a ship made to the island of Elba. Victor Hugo (1802–85) became famous for his Les Misérables (1862), still known around the world by its French title. Hugo became interested in the history of Notre-Dame Cathedral, and his The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1831) raised much awareness of the cathedral’s medieval history. Other French writers of the period include Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850), author of Father Goriot, among many others; Charles Baudelaire (1821–67); Gustave Flaubert (1821–80), author of Madame Bovary (1857); George Sand (pseudonym of Armandine-Aurore-Lucile Dudevant, 1804–76); Stendhal (pseudonym for Marie- Henri Beyle, 1783–1842) author of The Red and the Black (1831) and The Charterhouse of Parma (1839); Hippolyte Taine (1828–93), who wrote The Origins of Contemporary France (1875–1894), an attack on the French revolutionaries; Jules Verne (1828–1905), author of Journey to the Center of the World (1864) and Around the World in Eighty Days (1873); and Emile Zola (1840–1902), author of Germinal (1885). There were also important philosophical works by Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet, 1694–1778) and Montesquieu (1689–1755). Germany was, in some ways, very different, largely owing to the legacy of the Napoleonic Wars, and its fragmentation until 1871. The importance of German literature was assured by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–32), author of Faust (1808–32), who introduced the world to a mind and talent that remains unique. There was also a particularly important contribution to the world of philosophy, politics, drama, and poetry. Important writers of the period include poet and essayist Heinrich Heine (1797–1856), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), Immanuel Kant (1724– 1804), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). Mention should also be made of Karl Marx (1818–83), who moved from Germany to England and was author of The Communist Manifesto (1848), Das Kapital (1867–94) and the founder of communism. This was also one of the major eras in Russian literature, with famous writers of this period including playwright and short story writer Anton Chekhov (1860–1904), author of The Seagull (1896); Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–81), author of Crime and Punishment (1866) and the Brothers Karamazov (1879–80); Nikolay Gogol (1809–52, author of The Inspector General (1836); Maxim Gorky (pseudonym for Alexey Peshkov, 1868–1936); Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799–1837); and Count Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), author of War and Peace (1865–69), and Anna Karenina (1873–77). From Scandinavia during this period came the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906) and the Swedish dramatist August Strindberg (1849–1912). Outside Europe and the Americas, there were signifi cant changes in literary traditions. The spread of European languages by way of travelers, missionaries, occupying armies, and the arrival of commercial organizations furthered the familiarity with English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian. Some gifted students, talented individuals, and the well-to-do found their way to London, Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Rome—and then returned to their homelands hugely infl uenced, not always sympathetically, by their experiences. Those who were to make literature their life’s work often wrote in their native tongue, but, for the most part, adopting styles that their sojourns had introduced them to. In India some prominent names are C. Subrahmanya Bharati (1882–1921), the outstanding Tamil poet; B. C. Chatterji (1838–94), a Bengali novelist described as the “fi rst master of the true novel in India” with Rajmohan’s wife (1864); Toru Dutt (1856–77), poet, essayist, and musician. In the Malay world the literary tradition involved hikayats, sagas recited by wise men, sometimes recorded. The fi rst of these published in the West was the Hikayat Abdullah of Abdullah Munshi bin Abdul Kadir, secretary to Raffl es, and which includes an account, albeit secondhand, of the founding of Singapore; with another important one being the Tuhfat al-Nafi s, which was begun in 1865 but not published until 1932 when an edition was published in Singapore. In Vietnam the greatest writer of the period was Nguyen Du (1765–1820), the creator of Kim Van Kieu, a verse novel, that has come to be regarded as Vietnam’s national poem. Writing in Tagalog, the language of central Luzon in the Philippines, Francisco Balagtas (1788–1862) was regarded as the “prince of Tagalog poets”—Tagalog literature had already been highly developed. Japan saw a fl ourishing of literature with writers such as the novelist Ichiyo Higuchi (1872–96) and Futabatei Shimei (1864–1909). China had a tradition 244 literature (1750–1900) of literature stretching back 2,000 years and was easily able to adapt to include novels, a genre known in the country since the 14th century, with Liu E (1857–1909) writing the Travels of Lao Ts’an (c. 1904–07), and Chou Shu-jen (Lu Hsun) (1881–1936) who became regarded by many as the most important literary fi gure in modern China. Also in China, teams of historians under the Manchu Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty compiled vast histories, collecting and collating earlier works and historical traditions. In fact it was also a period, during the 1750s, when the Manchu script was gaining wider acceptance. There are also court chronicles in most Asian countries, with those in Mughal India, Cambodia, Korea, Thailand (from the 1780s), and Vietnam still surviving. The arrival of Europeans in many parts of the world led to some of these works being bought and taken to European and American libraries, where translations of extracts were published, along with the recording and publishing of many literary works that had been told orally. Further reading: Blain, Virginia, Patricia Clements, and Isobel Grundy, eds. The Feminist Companion to Literature in English. London: B.T. Batsford, 1990; Carpenter, Humphrey, and Mari Prichard, eds. The Oxford Companion to Children’s Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; Drabble, Margaret. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987; Pynsent, R. B. and S. Kanikova, eds. The Everyman Companion to East European Literature. London: J.M. Dent, 1993; Welch, Robert, ed. The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996; Wilde, William H., Joy Hooton, and Barry Andrews, eds. The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Justin Corfi eld Lobanov-Yamagata Agreement (1896) The Lobanov-Yamagata Agreement was a pact between Russia and Japan concerning their respective interests in Korea, signed in 1896. During the early 1890s, Russian and Japanese involvement in Northeast Asia in general and in Korea in particular intensifi ed. In 1891 Russia announced the laying of the Trans-Siberian Railway from St. Petersburg to the Pacifi c coast, a distance of about 5,700 miles. Although this project had political and economic ends it was also defi ned as a cultural mission to bring civilization and Christianity to the peoples of Asia. Three years later in 1894 the Japanese and Chinese struggle for hegemony over the weak kingdom of Korea led to the outbreak of the fi rst Sino-Japanese War. After the Chinese defeat, Russia became Japan’s main rival because of its pressure, together with Germany and France, to force Japan to relinquish its gains in south Manchuria (the “Three Power Intervention”), but also by reason of its expansionist ambitions in East Asia. Japan was concerned about the repercussions of the Trans-Siberian Railway, but the main focus of Russo-Japanese rivalry was on Korea, whose king viewed the Russians as his saviors from Japan. Russia fi lled the political vacuum left by the defeated China in Korea and challenged Japanese ambitions to control the kingdom. Together with the United States, Russia induced the other powers to demand Korean concessions in the peninsula, such as a franchise for mining and for railway tracks. Japan’s position began to deteriorate in the summer of 1895 as its agents attempted to turn the country into a Japanese protectorate. In October 1895 members of the Japanese legation in Seoul entered the palace and stabbed Queen Min, the most vehement opponent of Japanese presence in Korea, to death. In February 1896 Japanese troops landed near Seoul to assist in a revolt but King Kojong found sanctuary in the Russian legation in Seoul. Many Koreans interpreted the internal exile of their monarch as an uprising against the Japanese presence and began to act accordingly. Japanese advisors were expelled, collaborators were executed, and the new cabinet was constituted of persons deemed pro-Russian. In this manner, a year after the First Sino-Japan War had ended, Russian involvement in Korea was greater than before, while Japan suffered setbacks. Prominent fi gures in Tokyo such as army minister Yamagata Aritomo argued that Japan had to come to terms with Russian hegemony in Korea for the time being and thus avoid having to confront all the Western nations on this issue. Consequently, in May 1896, the representatives of Russia and Japan signed a memorandum in which the latter recognized the new Korean cabinet. A month later Yamagata visited Russia for the coronation of Czar Nicholas II, and on June 9, 1896, ratifi ed the memorandum together with Russian foreign minister Aleksei Lobanov-Rostovskii. The resulting Lobanov- Yamagata Agreement contained slight amendments to Lobanov-Yamagata Agreement (1896) 245 the original memorandum. Facing unfavorable conditions in Korea, Japan made considerable concessions in this agreement, which had two secret provisions. First, the two countries agreed to send additional troops to Korea in the event of major disturbances. Second, they might station the same number of troops in Korea until the emergence of a trained Korean force. When Yamagata offered Lobanov the draft of the agreement he was unaware that a few days earlier the Russians had signed with China’s Li-Lobanov Agreement. The Russians had invited to the czar’s coronation ceremony the Chinese statesman Li Hongzhang, who was bribed to sign the Li-Lobanov Agreement. The core of the agreement, whose content was revealed only in 1922, was mutual aid in the event of Japanese aggression. One clause in the agreement was implemented at once—Li’s consent to grant Russia the concession to build a signifi cant shortcut for the Trans-Siberian Railway across Manchuria, which led immediately to a substantial increase in Russian involvement in the region. Because of the changing circumstances, the Yamagata- Lobanov Agreement was replaced two years later by the Nishi-Rosen Agreement. The new accord specifi ed that both sides would refrain from political intervention in Korea and would seek each other’s approval in providing military or fi nancial advisors as requested by the Korean government. Russia also explicitly acknowledged Japan’s special position in Korea, allowing it free commercial and industrial activity in the area in return for implicit Japanese acknowledgment of Russian infl uence in Manchuria. These two Russo-Japanese agreements did not prevent the struggle between the two nations over Korea. Japan increasingly regarded Russian involvement in Korea as a threat to its vital interests, especially as Russian involvement in neighboring Manchuria intensifi ed and the Trans-Siberian Railway project was about to be completed. After 1901 Japan insisted on the formula of Manchuria-Korea exchange, namely that Manchuria would go to Russia and Korea to Japan. Failing to persuade Russia to relinquish Korea, Japan began to attack Russian bases in Korea and Manchuria on February 8, 1904, opening a 19-month campaign that would become known as the Russo-Japanese War. Further reading: Asakawa, Kin’ichi. The Russo-Japanese War, Its Causes and Issues. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1904; Duus, Peter. The Abacus and the Sword. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995; Kowner, Rotem. Historical Dictionary of the Russo-Japanese War. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2005; Lensen, George Alexander. Balance of Intrigue: International Rivalry in Korea and Manchuria, 1884–99. Tallahassee, FL: The Diplomatic Press, 1982; Malozemoff, Andrew. Russian Far Eastern Policy, 1881–1904, With Special Emphasis on the Causes of the Russo-Japanese War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1958; Nish, Ian. The Origins of the Russo-Japanese War. New York: Longman, 1985. Rotem Kowner Louis XVI (1754–1793) French monarch Born in August 1754, the ill-fated Louis XVI became king of France in 1774, on the death of his father, Louis XV. In 1770 he had married Marie Antoinette of Austria, the daughter of Francis I and Maria Theresa. It was a dynastic marriage, intended to cement the alliance of France and Austria-Hungary, the heart of the Holy Roman Empire. The alliance, known as the diplomatic revolution of 1756, had completely altered the balance of power in Europe, by allying Bourbon France with the Habsburgs of Austria-Hungary, who had been at odds for centuries. The alliance had been one of the major causes of the Seven Years’ War of 1756–63. When Louis XVI ascended the throne, France was enjoying one of its rare periods of peace in the 18th century. The time was ripe for a serious reconstruction of the economy. The extreme expenses incurred by the wars of Louis XIV and Louis XV weighed heavily on the depleted treasury, and there was the threat of bankruptcy. However, events would prove that Louis XVI, unlike Louis XIV, lacked the determination or ruthlessness to carry out the reforms needed to rescue his kingdom. Although given a choice of some of the most astute ministers to ever serve the French monarchy, Louis XVI simply lacked the will to support them against the entrenched opposition that contested their attempts at renewal for France. Louis’s fi rst fi nancial adviser, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, had already had substantial experience at the provincial level in France as an economist. Turgot’s attempts at reforms almost immediately made enemies among the entrenched interests of France, including the nobility and the bourgeoisie of the provinces. In 1776 Turgot went ahead with six edicts to radically modernize both France’s economy and society. But he seemed unable to gauge the impact of what he did and brought about negative unintended results. Finally, he made the mistake of refusing favors for those in 246 Louis XVI Queen Marie Antoinette’s immediate circle. Turgot was dismissed in 1776. The next minister to attempt to salvage the monarchy was Jacques Necker, who had been born in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1732, and had been a clerk in a Swiss bank by the age of 15. Necker, keen not to earn the unpopularity of Turgot, pursued a policy of raising money by borrowing instead of increasing taxes. It was popular with the people, but only increased the indebtedness of the monarchy at a time when Louis XVI was spending large sums of money to support the infant United States in the American Revolution against France’s ancient enemy, England. Necker’s downfall was his inability to implement effective reforms, after having taken the country further into debt and put almost no caps on spending. Necker was dismissed from duty, only to be brought back in 1788. When Louis XVI summoned the Estates General to meet in Paris in May 1789, it was the fi rst time this body had convened since 1614, following the assassination of King Henry IV in 1610. In the years since the last convocation of the Estates General, the bourgeoisie had emerged, ironically in large part due to the need to fi nance and provide for the wars of the monarchy, as fi nancially the most powerful of the three estates in France. The members of this Third Estate had come to Paris determined to gain the say in French government that they felt they had now earned. Neither the king nor the two dominant estates, the clergy and the nobility, had any intention of listening to the demands of the bourgeoisie; theirs was a society where those who worked and made money were considered the social inferiors of those who wore the court sword of the nobility. To the surprise of Louis XVI and the two elevated estates, the Third Estate proved obstinate in asserting its rights. On June 17, 1789, the Third Estate declared itself the National Assembly, asserting its belief that it alone spoke for the people of France, not the king or the entrenched members of the clergy or nobility. Gradually, progressive members of the other two estates swelled the ranks of the National Assembly. It was here that Louis XVI displayed the characteristic indecision which would ultimately cost him his life. He had two clear choices. The fi rst option was that Jacques Necker had created a plan that would involve compromise with the National Assembly on some key issues, while retaining the king’s royal prerogative on others. The second choice, more brutal, was simply marching with loyal troops to where the National Assembly met and dismissing it and arresting or shooting those who resisted the royal decree. When faced with his two options, Louis XVI simply issued an order closing the hall where the Third Estate met. The Third Estate replied with the declaration that they would not depart until France had a constitution. (The U.S. Constitution was ratifi ed in 1787.) Even when Louis XVI met with the National Assembly on June 23, with troops assembled outside, he did nothing to assert his royal will, where Louis XIV would have likely used a bayonet charge to clear out the intransigent assembly. LOSING CONTROL Louis XVI rapidly lost control of events. On July 9, the National Assembly reconvened as the National Constituent Assembly, with the clear intent of creating a constitution under which all Frenchmen, including the king, would be subject. On July 11 Louis XVI banished Necker, who still had the confi dence of the National Constituent Assembly and the people. Three days later, the Parisians, along with the king’s own French Guards regiment, stormed the symbol of royal power in Paris, the Bastille, and killed its constable, the marquis Bernard de Launay, and placed his head upon a pike. Some order was maintained when the marquis de Lafayette was placed in command of the French National Guard, which had been created as a rival to the royal army. Yet Lafayette showed none of the decisiveness that had characterized his role in the American Revolution. The royal family was forcibly removed from the Palace of Versailles to the Tuileries Palace in Paris where the people and the National Guard could better control them. Louis XVI still commanded the allegiance of most of the people and could at this stage most likely have avoided the worst of what was to come by graciously becoming a constitutional monarch in France. Instead, Louis began to play a dangerous game. While pretending to go along with the Assembly, he entered into correspondence with the kings of Europe and with émigrés, French nobles who had already fl ed France and were determined to bring down the revolution. On June 21, 1791, Louis XVI abandoned all pretext of supporting the French Revolution with an attempt to escape to the Austrian Netherlands, today’s Belgium, which was ruled by Marie Antoinette’s brother, Emperor Joseph ii. The disguised royal family got as far as Varennes, where they were discovered and returned under guard. On July 25, 1792, the First Coalition of the European monarchs issued a manifesto warning the French assembly to avoid harming the French royal family. This had the effect of uniting the French people against Louis XVI 247 the coalition forming against them—and against the king. On August 10, while Louis XVI was sitting with the Legislative Assembly, the Paris mob stormed the Tuileries. After serious fighting, the National Guard and the Swiss Guard succeeded in repelling a heavy assault. The commander of the Swiss Guard felt that a final charge by his professional soldiers would break up the mob completely—and perhaps cause the entire revolutionary movement to collapse like a house of cards. Instead, Louis XVI hesitated and told the Swiss Guards to stand down. The Paris mob, encouraged by the Swiss failure to act, charged them and virtually massacred them in the cause of a king who did not deserve their loyalty. the final act Following the debacle of the Tuileries, the final act began for Louis XVI. Three days after the taking of the Tuileries, on August 13, 1792, Louis XVI was arrested for treason. His secret correspondence with the kings of Europe and the émigrés had been found. On September 20, 1792, the defeat of the regular Prussian army by the French revolutionary forces at Valmy removed any hope of foreign help. The next day the National Convention met and formally abolished the monarchy. Louis XVI was put on trial on the charge of treason on December 11, 1792. With the radicals in charge, the outcome of his trial was a foregone conclusion. On January 21, 1793, Louis XVI went to the guillotine, meeting his death with rare dignity. Marie Antoinette would go to the guillotine on October 16, 1793. Their son, who might have reigned as Louis XVII, died in prison, most likely in 1795. See also French Revolution. Further reading: Anderson, M. S. Europe in the Eighteenth Century 1713–1789: General History of Europe Series. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2000; Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy of Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1965; Cobban. A History of Modern France: Volume 1: Old Regime and Revolution 1715–1799. New York: Penguin, 1991; Havens, George. Age of Ideas: From Reaction to Revolution in Eighteenth Century France. New York: Free Press, 1969; Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962; Palmer, R. R. Twelve Who Ruled. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970. John F. Murphy, Jr. Louisiana Purchase Napoleon I’s decision to cede the Louisiana territory to the United States in 1803 was a boon for the fledging American republic. The purchase of approximately 830,000 square miles of the trans-Mississippi west doubled the size of the United States and facilitated its expansion westward. France had been in possession of the territory since its exploration by La Salle in 1682, but ceded it to Spain at the end of the Seven Years’ War. Under Spanish rule, citizens of the United States living in the trans- Appalachian West were allowed free use of the Mississippi River and access to the port of New Orleans for transshipment of their goods to oceangoing vessels. Expansionist-minded Americans accepted this arrangement because they were confident that America’s growing population would eventually end the nominal rule of Spain in Louisiana. The situation changed drastically when Spain ceded Louisiana to France by a secret treaty in 1800 that was reaffirmed in 1801. It was widely assumed that Napoleon planned to use Louisiana for the establishment of an empire in the Americas and that he would negate America’s right of deposit at New Orleans. For President Thomas Jefferson, “this affair of Louisiana” was troublesome. He was faced with the possibility of a French barrier to American expansion, the militancy of western Americans who chafed at the news of the cession, and personal attacks by members of the Federalist Party. Jefferson decided on a pragmatic approach to the situation. He reinforced American security in the West and coupled it with shrewd diplomacy. Via his French friend Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, he sent an open letter to the American minister in France, Robert R. Livingston. Jefferson hinted at the possibility of an alliance between the United States and England. He also instructed Livingston to negotiate for the purchase of the port of New Orleans and dispatched James Monroe to Paris to help. By the time Monroe arrived in Paris on April 12, 1803, Napoleon’s fortunes had changed. His plans for a New World empire were foiled by the inability of his troops to quell an uprising in Saint-Domingue, and he was faced with an impending war with England. Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, informed the Americans that France was willing to sell all Louisiana. The Americans, without presidential authorization, accepted Talleyrand’s offer and signed the Louisiana 248 Louisiana Purchase Purchase Treaty on May 2, 1803. The negotiated price was $15,000,000 of which $3,750,000 was used to settle the claims of American citizens against France. Upon receipt of the treaty, Jefferson hesitated. Preferring a constitutional amendment that would sanction territorial acquisition, but faced with a favorable fait accompli, Jefferson set aside his narrow constructionist view of the Constitution and accepted the treaty. The Senate ratifi ed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty on October 20, 1803. See also Lewis and Clark Expedition; Manifest Destiny; political parties in the United States; Mississippi River and New Orleans. Further reading: DeConde, Alexander. This Affair of Louisiana. New York: Scribners, 1976; Kukla, Jon. A Wilderness So Immense: The Louisiana Purchase and the Destiny of America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. Louis B. Gimelli

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

LaFollette, Robert M. (1855–1925) U.S. progressive politician “Fighting Bob” LaFollette earned his sobriquet as the progressive political leader of Wisconsin, where he was elected governor and later represented his state in the U.S. Senate. A Republican, he attacked corporate privilege and worked to expand voting and consumer rights. Born in Primrose, Wisconsin, to a farming family, LaFollette earned a law degree at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and served as district attorney of Dane County before winning three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Always controversial within his own party, he lost his House seat in 1890. He ran twice for governor before winning the fi rst of his twoyear terms in 1900. Governor LaFollette supported “insurgents” and reformers who struggled to wrest leadership from corporate-infl uenced interests. By his fi nal term he had successfully legislated an ambitious reform program called the “Wisconsin Idea.” A key target was the railroads, blamed by a desperate farming constituency for unfair rates and predatory business practices. New corporate taxes enabled Wisconsin to pay its bills, including enhanced spending on public education. Under LaFollette, Wisconsin became the fi rst state to replace a restrictive political caucus system with direct primary elections. The state set up a civil service system and limited lobbying activities, curtailing the power and infl uence of both corporations and political bosses. Elected by Wisconsin lawmakers to the U.S. Senate in 1905, LaFollette took his fi ery reformism to the national stage. He opposed the Payne-Aldrich tariff as a protectionist measure that helped wealthy eastern interests at the expense of farmers and other small producers. He fought for direct election of senators. He regularly sided with organized labor. By 1911 LaFollette was determined to make a run for the presidency against his party’s incumbent, William Howard Taft. To his dismay, the ever-popular Theodore Roosevelt reentered politics to run under the “Bull Moose” banner, forcing a resentful LaFollette out. As a midwesterner, LaFollette tended toward isolationism and also represented a large German-American constituency. When war broke out in Europe, LaFollette was among those who feared that big business and wealthy speculators would gain riches while the common man fought in World War I. He was widely criticized for voting against President Woodrow Wilson’s declaration of war in April 1917. After the war, with the progressive movement fading, LaFollette worked to expose the Teapot Dome oil reserves scandal of the Warren Harding administration. In 1924, LaFollette fi nally ran for president as a progressive. He won almost 17 percent of the popular vote and his home state’s 13 electoral votes in a three-way race, but the campaign left him exhausted. LaFollette died in 1925 in Washington, D.C., and is buried in Madison. Further reading: LaFollette, Robert M. LaFollette’s Autobiography: A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences. L Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960; Unger, Nancy C. Fighting Bob LaFollette: The Righteous Reformer. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000. John M. Mayernik Lansing-Ishii Agreement (1917) The scramble for concessions in China opened in 1898 when Germany established a sphere of infl uence in Shandong (Shantung) Province. In 1914 Japan joined World War I against the Central Powers in accordance with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, conquered German-held islands in the northern Pacific, and drove the Germans out of Shandong. China remained neutral partly due to Japanese pressure. To ensure its right to Shandong, Japan presented a set of Twenty-one Demands to China in January 1915. They included China’s agreement to the transfer of German rights in Shandong to Japan. China leaked the terms of the demands to the United States, hoping for its intervention in vain, partly because the administration of President Woodrow Wilson was preoccupied with events in Europe. Unable to resist Japanese pressure, China acceded to most of the terms of the Twenty-one demands in May 1915. Japan subsequently negotiated secret agreements with Russia, Great Britain, France, and Italy that secured its claims to Shandong in postwar peace negotiations. In November 1917 Japan sent special ambassador viscount Ishii Kikujiro to Washington, ostensibly to congratulate the United States for joining the Allied cause but also to obtain U.S. agreement with Japan’s claims on Shandong. In the resulting Lansing-Ishii Agreement (negotiated with U.S. secretary of state Robert Lansing), the United States recognized that “geographic propinquity creates special relations between nations,” thus tacitly acknowledging Japan’s special position in China. They also signed a secret protocol in which both nations pledged not to seek special privileges in China that would infringe on the existing rights of friendly nations. While the United States believed that the agreement upheld Chinese interests and the Open Door policy, Japan took it to mean the United States had accepted Japan’s “paramount interest” in China. Its future in Shandong secure, Japan then allowed China to declare war against Germany and other Central Powers. Japan further consolidated its position in Shandong in 1918 by signing a secret pact with the warlord then in power in China whereby in exchange for a Japanese loan, that warlord agreed to additional concessions to Japan in Shandong. Japan came to the Paris Peace Conference after World War I as one of the Big Five powers, while China had the lowly status of an associated power. Japan also came armed with secret treaties bolstering its claim to Shandong. China pleaded for the return of Shandong based on President Wilson’s support of the right of national self-determination and the fact that its declaration of war with Germany had terminated previous treaties and agreements between the two nations. Wilson’s eventual acquiescence to Japan’s demands on Shandong, over the objections of Secretary of State Lansing and other U.S. delegates, became an important issue when the Versailles Treaty with Germany was presented to the U.S. Senate for ratifi cation and factored in its rejection. Thus the Lansing-Ishii Agreement further embroiled the United States in East Asian international relations. See also Shandong Question (1919); Yuan Shikai. Further reading: Cohen, Warren I. America’s Response to China, An Interpretative History of Sino-American Relations. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971; Fifi eld, Russell H. Woodrow Wilson and the Far East, The Diplomacy of the Shantung Question. New York: Crowell, 1952. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Lateran Treaty (1929) Between 1924 and 1926, the Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini consolidated his power until he had dictatorial control over the nation of Italy and was formally designated as Il Duce, the leader. No longer did Mussolini have to answer to parliament; only the monarch, Victor Emmanuel III, could dismiss him from his post. Once Mussolini became dictator, he turned his attention to societal issues. As part of this process he began discussions with the Holy See, the political entity of the papacy and Vatican City, in order to improve relations between the two parties. The support of the papacy was extremely important to Mussolini’s continued domination over the Italian people. However, the papacy had remained estranged from outright support for the Italian government following the confi scation without compensation of the Papal States during the process of Italian unifi - cation. This estrangement had a serious impact on the 196 Lansing-Ishii Agreement (1917) relations between the papacy and the Italian government and resulted in 1874 in the pope’s calling for all Catholics to boycott the political process and to refuse to take part in elections or join political parties. This situation persisted until the end of World War I, when the pope revoked the earlier decree. The Vatican still held tremendous power, both real and symbolic. Therefore, in August 1926 Mussolini began a dialogue between state and church to reinforce his own power and from the point of view of the Vatican to preserve some of its own. This dialogue was largely prompted by the establishment of the Opera Nazionale Balilla (ONB), the Fascist youth organization, and its actions to eliminate all other youth organizations and activities within Italy, including those run by the church. The church viewed these developments with alarm, since they would act to reduce its role in the formation of the character of youth. Although the government officially dissolved the Catholic Boy Scout organizations in 1927, the church, as part of the larger Lateran Treaty, did secure the continuation of Catholic youth groups. Under pressure from the ONB in the early 1930s, Mussolini toyed with the dissolution of these youth groups, which were increasingly seen as an alternative source of authority and indoctrination. However, he chose not take this step, which would have violated the terms of the Lateran Treaty. On February 11, 1929, Mussolini, on behalf of King Victor Emmanuel III, and Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, on behalf of Pope Pius XI and the Vatican, signed the Lateran Treaty, which ended 60 years of dispute between Italy and the Vatican. This document was divided into three main sections: the conciliation treaty, the financial convention, and the concordat. The conciliation treaty essentially established official diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Italy and affirmed Catholicism as the “state religion.” The financial convention stipulated that the Italian state would pay the Vatican the sum of 750 million lire in cash as well as 5 percent Consolidated Bearer Bonds of 1 trillion lire to compensate the Holy See for the loss of lands in 1870. This payment would be made in full by June 30, 1929, and would not be subject to any tariffs or taxes. The concordat gave the Vatican power over religious teaching in public schools at both the primary and secondary school levels (taught by priests); extended papal control over marriage laws and wills; reiterated the sovereignty of the Holy See over its property, its ecclesiastical members and seminarians, and its message; and preserved the organization Catholic Action, which was a branch of the Vatican, as the only independent organization left within Fascist Italy. The Lateran Treaty as a whole provided benefits to each party. For Mussolini, reconciliation with the church brought his government further internal stability, as it broadened the base of support for the state by eliminating the rift that had persisted for six decades. In terms of its larger, international impact, the treaty elevated Mussolini and thereby his style of government in the eyes of the world and gave both additional legitimacy. For the Vatican, its power over key societal institutions such as marriage and education were extended and reaffirmed. Its terms were incorporated into the postwar constitution and remained in effect until 1985. Further reading: Cassels, Alan. Fascist Italy. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968; Fermi, Laura. Mussolini. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966; Morgan, Philip. Italian Fascism, 1919–1945. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995; Williams, Paul. The Vatican Exposed, Appendix B. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. Laura J. Hilton Latin American cinema Motion pictures arrived in Latin America not long after the Lumière brothers debuted their invention in Paris in 1859. Lumière agents fanned out across the globe to sell projection equipment, cameras, and film stock wherever there was a market to support it; in Latin America, this meant chiefly the large, stable economies of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Early filmgoers in South America invariably saw European imports; Italy had become the dominant force in the fledgling film industry by 1912. During World War I, however, American companies used the disruption of the European film industry to gain a foothold in the market, and by 1926 an estimated 95 percent of screen time in South America went to Americanmade films. Local filmmakers could barely compete in this monopolized marketplace. Most were restricted to newsreels and documentaries. The situation was particularly bad in Mexico, which was dominated from the start by the nearby U.S. film machine. Promising young stars like Lupe Velez and Dolores del Rio were lured to stardom in nearby Hollywood, while American directors exploited Mexican locales (and locals) for increasingly popular westerns. Latin American cinema 197 During the Mexican Revolution, rebel army leader Pancho Villa signed with an American fi lm company to fi lm him in action—even going so far as to restage battles and skirmishes if cameramen had failed to get good shots during actual combat. Appalled by being shown to world audiences as uncultured savages, early Mexican fi lm directors like Manuel de la Bandera and Mimi Derba dedicated themselves to producing fi lms that showed the “goodness and greatness” of their culture. Without the backing of the state, there was little they could do to counteract the endless output of American studios. Things were only slightly better in Brazil and Argentina. Local feature fi lms were eschewed by theater owners in favor of more profi table and American imports. However, fi lm historian John King notes that several fi lms produced during the period showed glimmers of what was to come. In Brazil, a 22-yearold director named Mario Peixoto created Limite (The boundry, 1931), chronicling the struggle for survival on a small boat after a wreck at sea. In Argentina, King identifi es three fi lms that presage the socially conscious fi lms of the 1960s and 1970s: El ultimo malon (The last Indian attack, 1917), a fi ctionalized retelling of a turn-of-the-century uprising; Juan sin ropa (Juan without clothes, 1919) by the French Georges Benoît about a massacre during a contemporary strike; and Frederico Valle’s El apostol (The apostle, 1917), a political satire of the presidency of Hipolito Yrigoyen and the fi rst full-length animated feature in fi lm history. Sound fi lms arrived in Latin America in the late 1920s, but the technology was expensive and its distribution uneven. Many countries would not have “talkies” for years. Even in the few countries that had a well-developed fi lm industry, it was a struggle to compete against the hegemony of the U.S. industry. But the period also saw the rise of Latin American musicals, including the tanguera in Argentina, the chanchada in Brazil, and the ranchera in Mexico, that blended indigenous songs and dance traditions of those countries with the formulas popularized by North American studios. Thanks to wartime changes in the U.S. fi lm industry and a decline in the powerful Argentine fi lm industry, the 1940s became known as the “Golden Age” of Mexican cinema. The key fi lm of the era was Maria Candelaria (1943), which brought together famed director Emilio “El Indio” Fernández, cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and actress Delores del Rio. With the end of World War II, Mexican fi lm slipped back into decline, where it would remain for more than a decade. Further reading: Chanan, Michael. “Cinema in Latin America. In The Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Section 2: Sound Cinema, 1930–1960, p 427–435; ———. “New Cinemas of Latin America.” In The Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996; Section 3: The Modern Cinema, 1960–1995, p 427–435; King, John. Magical Reels: A History of Cinema in Latin America. London: Verson, 1990. Heather K. Michon Latin American feminism and women’s suffrage Feminism and women’s suffrage in Latin America blazed a different trail than their European or U.S. counterparts, although these movements provided inspiration. Latin American feminism is marked by diversity, as the region itself spans many ethnic and cultural zones, and class differences among Latin American women are pronounced. However, common threads do exist. Many Latin American feminists held to the idea that women are as good as men but not the same as men. Rather than demanding complete equality, these women advocated strengthening their power and prestige through traditional paradigms of gender, notably motherhood. They used conventional gender norms that constructed women as morally superior to men to demand special rights and a voice in the public realm. Suffrage came over a period of 30 years, with Ecuador fi rst in 1929, followed by Brazil in 1932, Cuba in 1934, Argentina in 1947, Mexico in 1953, and Paraguay in 1961. The construction of women’s gender roles throughout Latin America is central to understanding the Latin American women’s movement. The legacy of Spanish colonialism served as the basis for men and women’s roles in society and thus infl uenced Latin American feminism. Traditional gender roles stemming from the colonial period dictated women’s place in the home and men’s place in the public realm. The Virgin Mary served as the model for ideal womanhood, encouraging self-denial, piety, humility, purity, and obedience in women. Family, honor, and the home were the central tenets of the patriarchal family structure and dictated that women would remain in the home as wives and mothers. Honor was paramount to the family and impacted social standing and business ties, and women’s sexual purity in particular served as a marker of that honor. This focus on women as indicators of family honor created a double standard, as men’s sexual 198 Latin American feminism and women’s suffrage prowess served as a marker of masculinity and did not impact family reputation. Women had no legal rights in the public realm of law and government, including rights to divorce, children, or property. After Latin America’s independence from the European colonial powers in the early 19th century, the newly created liberal states mostly adhered to the Spanish legacy of gender inequality. These new states used the patriarchal structure of the family as a basis for their power. However, the prevailing political ideology of liberalism, based on liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty, did create some new prospects for elevating the status of women in society. Motherhood in particular and its importance to rearing the next generation of liberal citizens created opportunities for women. This emphasis on women’s roles as mothers did buttress the patriarchal system but simultaneously allowed women access to power. The nationalist and state-building period, from the early to mid-20th century, promised change in Latin America, including new gender roles adapted to fi t nationalist aims of industrialization and progress. Industrialization translated into a need for workers, including women, which required their entrance into the masculine public realm. The pursuit of progress and modernity to compete on a global scale required women’s work, justifi ed by both economic necessity and social utility. Increased opportunities in the public realm through work and education allowed women some gains but overall constrained their aspirations within normative frameworks of gender. The number of middle-class women in the workforce did facilitate women’s organizing around suffrage, and Brazilian women in particular boasted the largest and bestorganized movement in Latin America. Brazilian feminists worked to modernize women’s gender identities without drastically altering the status quo of gender roles and relations. The Federação Brasileira pelo Progresso Feminino (FBPF), founded by Bertha Lutz, advocated for a modernization of women’s roles that would not be considered radical by modern standards. The FBPF did not seek to eradicate women’s traditional place in the home nor the qualities they believed were inherent to the female sex. They used these things as strengths toward women’s greater participation in the public realm, and women in Brazil gained the right to vote in 1932 as a result of the work of these middle-class feminists. The Cuban Revolution in 1959 introduced the Marxist defi nition of womanhood into Latin America, promising change for women in terms of gender equality and their status in society. The National Federation of Cuban Women (FCW) advocated full and equal incorporation of women into all aspects of society. Vilma Espín, a woman who fought with guerrilla forces during the revolution, headed the organization. The FCW improved education for women and boosted female numbers in the workforce. It became a model that other Latin American countries would emulate. Despite such gains, some Latin American feminists argue that Cuban women still do not enjoy complete equality and are often relegated to auxiliary roles and activities. Latin American women in the recent past have continued to fi ght for women’s status in society and expanded rights in the public sphere, often from their traditional base of power as mothers. By the 1980s women’s concerns and feminism began to become part of the mainstream media, drawing greater attention to women’s issues. Although Latin American feminism continues to be divided along class lines, with different groups of women seeking different agendas, it continues to thrive, as evidenced by the many meetings Latin American women hold every year across the region to better their lives and those of their countrywomen. Further reading: Chambers, Sarah C. From Subjects to Citizens: Honor, Gender, and Politics in Arequipa, Peru. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999; Fraser, Nicolas, and Marysa Navarro. Evita: The Real Life of Eva Perón. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996; Hahner, June E. Women in Latin American History: Their Lives and Views. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 1980; Kuppers, Gaby, ed. Compañeras: Voices from the Latin American Women’s Movement. London: Latin American Research Bureau, 1994; Lavrin, Asunción. Women, Feminism, and Social Change in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, 1890–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. Kathleen Legg Latin American import substitution The term import-substitution industrialization (ISI) refers to the economic development strategy implemented by several Latin American governments in the period between the Great Depression and the debt crisis of 1982. Intended to encourage the growth of domestic industry, ISI emphasized an active role for the state in subsidizing and orchestrating the production of domestically produced goods. State-owned enterprises were Latin American import substitution 199 formed in such large-scale industries as petrochemicals, telecommunications, aircraft, and steel. In addition, high tariff walls and trade restrictions, including import licensing requirements, were imposed in order to protect infant industries from foreign competition. At the same time, the governments of the developing Latin American countries imposed foreign exchange controls to promote the import of intermediate products deemed critical to the industrialization process while restricting the quantity of nonessential imports. The origins of the ISI model can be traced back to the late 1920s and 1930s. Prior to that time the Latin American economy depended on exporting raw materials to—and buying manufactured products from—the more industrialized nations in Europe and North America. With the stock market crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression, Latin America’s export markets were greatly diminished. The collapse of commodity prices undermined the export-oriented economies and led economic strategists to search for a strategy that would render Latin American countries less susceptible to the future fl uctuations of the world market. Arguments for a change in policy were strengthened during World War II, when a shift to wartime production in industrialized nations left developing countries vulnerable to shortages in consumer goods. In the years following the war, declining real prices for primary commodities further disadvantaged developing countries and led many third world leaders to search for an alternative to export-led economies. The theoretical underpinnings for a policy of inward-looking development were articulated above all by Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch. As head of the United Nations (UN) Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), Prebisch greatly infl uenced Latin American economic policy in the 1950s. He and other dependency theorists posited an inherently unequal relationship between the “center” (industrialized nations) and the “periphery” (developing nations) and argued that unfettered international trade would consistently work to the disadvantage of the periphery. Proponents of ISI therefore advocated an active state policy to counteract the natural tendencies of the international market. State intervention was deemed justifi ed by the apparent failure of market forces to produce sustainable growth in Latin America during the fi rst several decades of the 20th century. Economic nationalists, eager to reduce dependence on the international market, turned to the state as the only economic actor with suffi cient resources to compete with powerful multinational corporations. The overarching goal of ISI was to develop domestic industries capable of producing substitutes for manufactured imports. State-owned enterprises proliferated in the three decades following World War II, particularly in industries that required heavy capital outlay. In some cases, rather than full state ownership, Latin American governments offered industrial incentives in the form of direct payments or tax breaks for fi rms engaging in import-substitution production. In addition, states used a combination of tariffs, quotas, and import licensing requirements to facilitate the industrialization process. The effectiveness of ISI strategies varied considerably from one country to the next within Latin America. In general, countries with larger populations and at least some degree of industrial development in place had more success with ISI. In Mexico and Brazil, for example, the economies during the ISI period experienced rapid growth and diversifi cation. Relatively poorer countries with smaller populations, on the other hand, often lacked a suffi cient domestic market to support the profi table production of certain manufactured products, such as automobiles. Even in relatively successful cases, the ISI model carried with it a number of interrelated problems, including overvalued exchange rates, inadequate export growth, and a large foreign debt. Dependence on imported consumer goods was simply replaced with dependence on imported capital goods such as heavy machinery. Trade defi cits continued and in some cases even worsened as exchange controls created disincentives for exports. In addition, the lack of competition in a protectionist climate fostered ineffi cient enterprises. ISI also failed to remedy unemployment, and the rapid urban growth that resulted from industrialization created additional burdens on increasingly interventionist states. When governments responded by printing more money, rampant infl ation resulted. One by one, Latin American countries abandoned the inward-looking strategy of ISI in favor of “neoliberal” economic policies. Further reading: Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. The Economic History of Latin America Since Independence. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Franko, Patrice M. The Puzzle of Latin American Economic Development. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld, 1999; Green, Duncan. Silent Revolution: The Rise and Crisis of Market Economics in Latin America. 2d ed. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2003; Salvucci, Richard J., ed. Latin America and the World Economy: Dependency and Beyond. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1996. Kathleen Ruppert 200 Latin American import substitution Latin American indigenismo Indigenismo refers to an artistic, literary, and political movement in Latin America that began in the late 19th century but reached its height during the nationalist period of the 1920s and 1930s. It coincided with the rise of nationalism as Latin Americans rejected European cultural superiority in favor of seeking out a unique Latin American identity that corresponded with the region’s cultural and racial diversity. Indigenismo functioned as a rallying point for nationalism, especially in Mexico and Peru, nations home to large and diverse Indian populations. It glorifi ed aspects of indigenous culture considered positive as symbols of national roots while simultaneously working to assimilate native peoples into a cultural mainstream often centered on a mestizaje identity, a social and biological designation meaning mixed race. Latin America’s colonial legacy lumped indigenous peoples together as a monolithic primitive group distinctly separate from mestizo culture. Spanish colonizers literally divided the population into two, creating a republic of Spaniards and a republic of Indians. The broad movement of indigenismo hoped to erase this divide to create homogenized social bodies. However, the movement suffered from the racist paradigm set by the colonizers by continuing to view indigenous peoples as an undifferentiated mass. Many indigenistas were elite white and mestizo individuals, and they imposed the ideology of indigenismo on Indian peoples without any prompting by such groups to do so. As a result, indigenismo was unable to escape Latin America’s colonial legacy of social hierarchies predicated on race, and consequently indigenismo policies functioned with unintended paternalism and racism. Mexico embraced indigenismo and thus serves as an important case study. The Mexican constitution of 1917 enshrined indigenismo as an offi cial ideology by demanding an end to the exploitation of Indians by landowners and priests while encouraging their assimilation into the social body. The postrevolutionary Mexican state sought to create a new national identity, and indigenous groups would have to be united with the rest of Mexican society to achieve that goal. José Vasconcelos, the fi rst minister of culture after the revolution, initiated the government effort to form a Mexican national culture by bringing the Indian and the mestizo together. During the 1920s, Vasconcelos hired artists such as Diego Rivera to paint murals in public areas and on government buildings that glorifi ed Mexico’s indigenous roots and depicted the darker side of European conquest and colonization. Elements of indigenous culture, such as music, dance, folk art, and myth became celebrated aspects of Mexican nationalism. Vasconcelos believed that Mexico’s future lay in the creation of a “cosmic race,” a fusion of racial and ethic groups. The cosmic race combined positive elements of different cultures to create a unique “Mexican” identity. Indigenismo and the idea of a cosmic race represent early attempts in Mexico to overcome the deep racial divides of the nation. The postrevolutionary government believed Mexico could not move forward without a unifi ed social body and that if Indian peoples remained separate from the rest of society, the entire country would be negatively affected. Separate Indian nations or enclaves like the Native American reservations in the United States would work against unifying the Mexican nation, and as such, Indians were encouraged to become mestizo. “THE INDIAN QUESTION” The postrevolutionary Mexican state implemented a range of policies infl uenced by indigenismo. Although policy makers held a wide range of opinions on the “Indian question,” they agreed that Mexico’s indigenous populations needed to be integrated into the national mainstream respectfully and without coercion. The Instituto Nacional Indigenista was a government ministry created specifi cally to implement indigenista policies aimed at assimilation. Rural schools functioned as one of the key elements in bringing Indian peoples into mestizo culture. These schools trained bilingual Indian teachers and served as sites to indoctrinate postrevolutionary nationalism. Despite the declarations of a noncoercive and respectful approach to assimilation, subtle racism pervaded indigenismo policies. Indigenismo tended to invert the very racist paradigms the movement sought to eradicate. In attempting to break away from colonial models that degraded everything Indian, indigenismo instead glorifi ed indigenous cultures to a point that bordered on exoticism. Indigenismo often characterized Mexico’s pre-Columbian past as a simpler, more pure way of life. This racism disseminated the idea that Indian cultures were innately superior to European and mestizo civilization. Such thinking depended on ideologies about race that attributed innate qualities to different races rather than breaking away from deterministic models as the movement hoped to do. Furthermore, indigenismo as an artistic, literary, and political movement lay in stark contrast to the social reality of Mexico’s (and other Latin American) indigenous groups. Racism and Latin American indigenismo 201 prejudice against Indians in daily life continued, and the “whitening” of Latin America persists to the modern day as evidenced by Latin American fi lm, television, and advertising. In Peru, a stark division exists between the country’s indigenous groups in the highlands and the white, black, and mestizo population of the coastal region. Peruvian Indians literally existed outside the national community. The middle-class indigenismo movement of Peru advanced national solidarity by calling for the integration of these two distinct populations. Men such as Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre took the ideas of indigenismo and created a political movement based on the belief that true national values came from Peru’s indigenous cultures. Haya de la Torre and others rejected European culture in favor of building a national identity from the cultural heritage of Peru’s Indian peoples. In addition, Peru’s constitution, promulgated on January 18, 1920, recognized the legal existence of Indian communities and protected these groups through special laws aimed at indigenous development and culture. The creation of the Indian Affairs Department in the Ministry of Development was charged with supervising the implementation of the constitutional measures designed to protect the rights of Indian peoples. Despite such seeming advances in Indian legal rights, reality painted a different picture. Change was very slow, and many of the constitution’s laws designed to protect Indians were delayed or only partially enforced. Although the adherents of indigenismo likely felt they acted with the best intentions, indigenismo in Latin America existed as a construction of the white 202 Latin American indigenismo Pueblo perform a snake dance in northern Mexico in 1900. Indigenous cultures in Latin America were threatened throughout the 20th century, and European-based culture continues to dominate the region today. and mestizo elite, an ideology imposed on indigenous groups tinged with subtle racism. By envisioning Latin America’s Indian peoples as monolithic groups with homogenized experiences, indigenismo followed a philosophy that certain Indian traits were good and others bad. However, the state’s institution of these values would later provide Indian peoples with the tools to appropriate the movement for themselves. By the 1970s neoindigenismo became the new creed, with indigenous peoples at the helm rather than a white and mestizo elite. Further reading: Chasteen, John Charles. Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001; Domínguez, Jorge I. Race and Ethnicity in Latin America: Essays on Mexico, Central and South America. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994; Graham, Richard, ed. The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990; Larrain, Jorge. Identity and Modernity in Latin America. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000; Morner, Magnus, ed. Race and Class in Latin America. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970). Kathleen Legg Latin American modernism Modernism in Latin America was a literary and cultural movement developed at the end of the 19th century. In Latin America, the word was adopted at the end of the 19th century to identify a cultural proposal intended to respond to the demands and requirements of modern times. Modernism represented a complex concept at the time, since it recovered the aesthetics and ideology of romanticism but aimed to connect Latin American culture with major traditions of the Westernized world. The modernization, democratization, and industrialization of Latin American capitals created a new public realm in which culture diversifi ed and reached a new audience. Its main representatives were Rubén Darío (1867–1916), Manuel Gutiérrez Najera (1859–95), José Martí (1853–95), Ramón López Velarde (1888–1921), and José Asunción Silva (1865–96). Octavio Paz (d. 1974) characterized modernity as a philosophical concept as well as a condition that had its beginning in the romanticism of the late 19th century. Modernity is founded in the construction of the notion of progress and human-generated change, which envisions a better future. The idea of modernity in Latin America was inherited from 19th-century Europe, particularly France. There is little doubt that Baron Haussmann in Paris had huge success as an urban strategist in Latin America. The baron’s spectacular interventions in Paris were soon embraced as urban savoir faire and strengthened French predominance not only in social and political thought but also in the fi ne arts and city design. Latin American elites worshipped Haussmann’s Paris as the ultimate model to follow in order to join the capitalist circuit of world cities. Urban reforms in general and urban renovation in particular were part of a package to modernize urban structures. Urban planning in Latin America has been legitimized by ideological frameworks that nevertheless have been used to manipulate and enhance power structures over time. The idea of planning became part of the political agenda at the end of the 19th century, when national caudillos (dictators) ruled their countries following enlightened and hygienist models from Europe in order to “modernize” the countries. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 20th century, a more European model started when residential colonias (residential districts) around public spaces and modern infrastructures and services emerged. The districts were developed by private international investors, who profited from the government provision of licenses and tax benefi ts to enhance real estate developments. Under different dictatorships and with a stable economy, the cities aspired to access world-class circuits, even when income disparities and social inequalities were developing and strengthening a dual socioeconomic system. Planning had been characterized by hierarchical decision making, the legitimization of plans by groups of “experts,” and international businessmen taking a leading role. However, at the time, Mexico City and San Salvador were the only cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, which showed the limited diversity of economic development they had achieved when mining became no longer profi table. At the end of the 19th century, French urbanism was very infl uential all over the continent, especially after Baron Haussmann’s interventions in Paris, which were considered compelling highprofi le urban operations to transform capital cities, such as Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, and Caracas, into world-class cities. Later in the 20th century the continent experienced considerable economic expansion, the modernization of infrastructures, and a process of urbanization without precedent. Even when a rapid process of adaptation and assimilation of modernity occurred, leading to cultural integration Latin American modernism 203 of different societal groups, it is also true that this could only be achieved through a certain amount of alienation and displacement of the local culture and traditional society. The history of modernity has been the quest for progress, which represents a long-sought aim and a recurrent framework that is never to be achieved in its totality. In the late 19th century science and industrialization were considered the foundations of progress, embodying a rational, objective, and unquestionable tool of production and human knowledge. Modernity represented an ideal image of progress and the idea of an advanced model of living according to the economic, political, and intellectual elite. As reality was demonstrated to be far more complex, the idea of modernity became a supreme metaphor for a homogeneous and harmonic reality. Along with this cultural movement, positivism provided the philosophical grounds to maintain the idea of progress through the actions of the elites as representatives of a Darwinian natural selection. This philosophical approach also provided a general plan of government with the slogan “liberty, order and progress,” where liberty would be the means, order the general framework, and progress the ultimate end. See also Latin American nationalism; Porfi riato. Further reading: Anderson, Robert R. Spanish American Modernism. A Selected Bibliography. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1970; Litvak, Lily, comp. El modernismo. Madrid: Taurus, 1981; Matlowsky, Berenice D. The Modernist Trend in Spanish American Poetry. A Selected Bibliography. Washington, DC: Pan American Union, 1952; Paz, Octavio. Los hijos del limo. Del romanticismo a la vanguardia. Barcelona: Seix-Barral, 1974; Yurkievich, Saúl. Celebración del modernismo. Barcelona: Tusquets, 1976. Alfonso Valenzuela Aguilera Latin American nationalism Latin America’s nationalism emerged as a reaction to the injuries infl icted during the colonial period and later with the wars of independence, revolution, and expansionism that—not surprisingly—generated a defensive stance toward the outside world. After independence, nationalism embraced modernity as a major state-related historical movement toward economic progress, technological innovation, and political liberty. This nationalism tended to be radical yet double ended, since while aiming to vindicate the historical past it also embraced a political project for the future that would solve the modernization imperative. The origins of nationalism in Latin America can be traced to two key periods: independence and modernization. After independence from the European powers in the 19th century, the need to defi ne a new identity started to shape an image that responded to a sovereign national identity. The colonial period in the Americas extended from the 16th to the early 19th century, a period of nearly 300 years during which different developmental stages followed. It is not necessary to credit the Spaniards for introducing urbanization to America since the Aztec capital already featured monumental architecture, advanced infrastructure networks, highly specialized manufacturing, and a sophisticated administrative urban structure. However, a European city planning framework was implemented following Spanish regulations and building codes (Leyes de las Indias and the Ordenanzas), which dictated basic land, use zoning, streets’ orientation and width, and various forms of land tenure. Latin American countries gained their independence in the 1800s, when cities were already consolidated as socioeconomic and political centers on the continent. Likewise, at different stages in Latin America, the drive to become “modern” emerged as a requirement to accessing the world-class circuits and fi nancial markets. However, in both cases the creation of national representation responded to the interaction among the networks of power. The glorifi cation of the past is usually framed to convey sentiments and references that sustain a specifi c power structure. In most cases, the creation of a national image in each country was constructed by the people within the power circle (political, economic, or cultural), who, after considering several national images, identifi ed the desired pattern of modernity. However, it is also clear that popular traditions, beliefs, and aspirations were also included in the construction of the national concept, even when choices were made among the different ways to frame the historical background of the country. In various Latin American countries at the end of the colonial period in the 19th century, as well as during the industrial drive of the early 20th century, nationalism was modeled after a collage envisioned by the economic and military elites, which centered their aims within the transformation of the capital cities. These images served as a global outlining force that provided coherence and unity to the changing conditions of the territory. The creation of national images at the turn of the 20th century pursued the model of urban 204 Latin American nationalism cosmopolitanism and modern nationalism epitomized by France. In this sense, the nation represented a Westernized, homogeneous construction oriented toward international markets and ruled and organized by scientifi c means. However, Latin American nations were also shaped according to the reorganization, invention, and reinterpretation of their past, following the national rhetoric that originated in colonial times. Nationalism had political uses, such as obtaining international acceptance, achieving internal cohesion, and concentrating and consolidating the new political elites. It is also ironic that the search for a fl agship identity led individuals to explore their national heritage and history but also opened new means of expressing their identity through new images of modernity. For instance, Latin American countries embraced modern architecture in order to express their cosmopolitan modernity through novel design and avant-garde construction technologies. However, the reaction to recent aesthetic and cultural values was often hatred directed against cultural memories associated with past regimes more than against foreign ideas, recreating the new national identity in this way. An important element in the construction of modern nationalism was the transformation of capitals into world-class cities. Since modernity demanded infrastructures, communication, and compelling urban environments, cities became the materialization of the national aims themselves. Following Baron Haussmann’s transformation of Paris at the end of the 19th century, Buenos Aires expanded its parks and green areas, Mexico City built its Paseo de la Reforma Boulevard, Santiago created its Santa Lucia and Forestal parks, and Montevideo defi ned the Prado’s grounds as the next Bois de Boulogne. In most capital cities, Haussman’s ideas were used selectively and limited to specifi c solutions and projects. However, a strong French infl uence was always present in the Latin American imagination, also present in education (most Latin American schools were modeled after the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris) and through professional consultancies (Forestier, Rotival, etc.). Later in the 20th century the continent experienced considerable economic expansion, the modernization of infrastructures, and a process of urbanization without precedent. In the 1930s the industrialization of Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Peru, and Brazil took place and increased right after World War II, when national policies to substitute imports fostered development. The economic centralization of power was to overtly favor national capitals as engines of growth. With World War II, industrialization policies in Latin American cities followed the North American urban model of introducing industrialized construction technology as well as automobileoriented urban schemes that epitomized the ultimate instruments of modernity. In the 20th century U.S. intervention in Latin American countries expanded, such as in the case of the Panama Canal, the Cuban missile crisis, and the assassination of the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile. As a consequence of the growing awareness of interdependence, the Bogotá Conference of 1948 produced the Organization of American States (OAS) to promote hemispheric unity. In short, the biggest challenge that postcolonial states in Latin America have had to face has been their fragility. Right after their independence, the new governments had to substitute the prenational links with a sense of identity and a national commitment to the emerging nation. However, and in order to protect the nation’s vulnerable condition, the states often favored a centralized administration, emphasizing the integration of the territory and stressing the need for political governance despite the different degrees of cohesion. It is not surprising that economic development represented the preeminent way to legitimize diverging loyalties in the territory and transfer them to the new state. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, industrialization led the way to modernity, which for a premature state meant more than a challenge; it was an imperative. In Latin American countries, the governments designed political projects that integrated a common past with a long-desired future, creating a sense of continuity in which the transcendent character of the nation would be revealed. See also Latin American modernism; Porfi riato. Further reading: Alba, Victor. Nationalists Without Nations: The Oligarchy Versus the People in Latin America. New York: Praeger, 1968; Deutsch, Karl W. Nationalism and Its Alternatives. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969; Shafer, Boyd. Faces of Nationalism: New Realities and Old Myths. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1972; Smith, Anthony D. S. Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University, 1979; Urban, Greg, and Joel Sherzer. Nation-States and Indians in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991; Whitaker, Arthur, and David C. Jordan. Nationalism in Contemporary Latin America. New York: Free Press, 1966. Alfonso Valenzuela Aguilera Latin American nationalism 205 Latin American populism Populist movements fl ourished in many Latin American nations from roughly 1920 until the mid-1960s. Populist regimes took a variety of forms in diverse national contexts, even within Latin America. Variations within populism were particularly pronounced because populist movements were based on ad hoc responses to circumstances rather than on any coherent or consistent ideology. Nevertheless, populist movements within Latin America did share several defi ning features. Overwhelmingly urban based, Latin American populist movements were characterized by multiclass, nonrevolutionary coalitions that aimed at the development of domestic industry, the redress of popular grievances, and the peaceful integration of the urban masses into a political arena hitherto controlled almost exclusively by elites. Populism in the Latin context had preconditions of both rapid urbanization and the rise of welfare states, both of which contributed to new understandings of the state’s role in addressing social issues. In most cases the leaders of populist movements were charismatic fi gures who employed a personalist style of leadership to garner support. Examples of populist leaders include Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina, Getúlio Vargas in Brazil, Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in Colombia, Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre in Peru, and José María Velasco Ibarra in Ecuador. Unlike its rural counterpart in North America, populism in the Latin American context was predominantly urban based. Occasionally, as was the case in Peru, plantation workers might be included in the movement if they worked in close proximity to the towns. Populism was largely a reaction to the phenomenal growth of cities between 1880 and 1930 and the social dislocation that resulted from this so-called metropolitan revolution. Although these factors were not suffi cient to ensure a populist response, they did create an environment favorable to the proliferation of populist movements. Signifi cant agrarian reforms occured in Mexico under the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas (1934–40). Cárdenas’s agrarian policies were atypical of populist leaders, however; much more typical was his support for organized industrial labor in Mexico’s cities. The meteoric rise to power of Argentinian populist leader Juan D. Perón was due in large part to the charisma of Péron and his second wife, Eva Duarte de Perón, both of whom made extensive personal contact with workers throughout Argentina. Populist leaders frequently took advantage of advances in media technology in order to deliver their message to the populace. Pedro Ernesto, mayor of Rio de Janeiro and leader of Brazil’s fi rst populist movement, was among the fi rst to explore the political potential of the radio as a means of mobilizing large segments of the population, as was Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in Colombia. In addition to making use of the airwaves to reach his followers, Gaitán also produced his own newspaper. In later years the Brazilian Department of Press and Publicity became a major source of propaganda on behalf of Getúlio Vargas, who embraced populist politics in the fi nal decade of his career. José María Velasco Ibarra, fi ve-time president of Ecuador, used various forms of propaganda to project a populist image throughout his lengthy career. SOCIAL BASE Another defi ning characteristic of Latin American populism was its multiclass social base. Although many of the movement’s objectives appealed primarily to the working classes, supporters were recruited from all levels of society. Unlike socialism, which aimed at the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, populism sought the political integration of the masses without fundamental change to the social structure. Particularly in the early years of populism, known as the reformist or consensual era, members of the middle and elite classes often supported populist movements as an effective means to curb lowerclass agitation. In many cases the middle classes stood to benefi t materially from populist reform as well. The expansion of social services, for example, created thousands of professional jobs, while policies aimed at promoting industrial growth appealed to a broad spectrum of society. Peru’s Aprista movement, founded by Haya de la Torre in 1924, exemplifi es the type of multiclass coalition that characterized Latin American populism. Populism became especially prevalent in Latin America during the 1930s and 1940s, in the wake of the stock market crash and the global Great Depression that followed. The virtual collapse of several Latin American export economies during the Great Depression prompted policy makers to impose high tariffs and consider methods of diversifying the Latin American economy, thus reducing dependence on the international market. Although populism followed no consistent ideology, Latin American populist movements tended to include the expansion of state activism in order to promote accelerated industrialization. Several populist leaders, including Perón in Argentina and Vargas in Brazil, established state-owned enterprises in areas formally controlled by the private sector. In the case of Argentina, the Fabricaciones Militares was founded in 1943 206 Latin American populism to manufacture military equipment but quickly expanded to include such nonmilitary enterprises as mining and real estate. The Peronist regime also pursued the nationalization of crucial sectors of the economy such as public utilities, transportation, and foreign trade. Vargas for his part attempted to lay the foundations for industrial growth by infusing capital into projects to improve the nation’s infrastructure and by organizing state marketing systems, in addition to developing state-owned petroleum and steel enterprises. Although specifi c policies were not without their critics, the populist desire to strengthen domestic industry was certainly shared by a broad spectrum of society. The labor movement typically supported a protectionist policy, while middle-class industrialists as well as the military championed economic nationalism and domestic industrial development. As long as the economies continued to expand—as, for example, during the wartime and immediate postwar export boom in 1940s Argentina—such support was relatively easy to maintain. ZERO-SUM GAME Populist governments were able to dispense benefi ts to certain segments of society without reducing the incomes of other sectors. A much different picture emerged in the later phases of growth, when populist regimes faced a zero-sum game: Without an absolute rise in national income, policy makers were forced to decide whether to become genuinely redistributive. To do so was to risk alienating the middle classes, while failure to do so meant the loss of the working-class support on which populist regimes likewise depended. Either way, a broad-based coalition became increasingly diffi cult to maintain in the later years of the movement. The results of economic stagnation, growing infl ation, and increased social tensions were disastrous for Latin American populist leaders. Gaitán, who was widely expected to accede to the Colombian presidency in 1950, was murdered in downtown Bogotá before he could take offi ce. Velasco, who had dominated Ecuadorian politics for nearly fi ve decades, was forced into exile at the end of his fi fth and fi nal term. Perón also went into exile after he was ousted by a military coup in 1955. He spent the next 17 years in exile before returning to Argentina in 1972. Perón was elected to a third presidential term the following year but was rendered nearly powerless by out-ofcontrol infl ation and factional violence; he died in 1974. Cárdenas’s presidency ended amid dissent and controversy, and Vargas concluded his second term (1951–54) by committing suicide. By the late 1960s the armed forces had outlawed populism in most of Latin America and established military regimes instead. Several factors can be adduced to help explain populism’s failure to live up to its initial promise. Above all, the changed economic circumstances following World War II rendered the policies diffi cult, if not impossible, to sustain. Several Latin American countries faced economic crises in the early 1950s due to rising infl ation and lagging economic growth. Promises of continually expanding social benefi ts could not be met in a period of relative economic stagnation, at least not without exacerbating the already rampant infl ation. At the same time, the very nature of populism as an expansionist movement and a great mobilizing force contributed to mounting instability as a larger and more confi dent working-class electorate pressed the populist regimes for more increasingly radical redistributive policies. In some cases the regime’s capitulation to such radical demands prompted the middle classes to withdraw their support from what was formerly a multiclass coalition. Elsewhere the fear of widespread uprisings, particularly in the aftermath of the Cuban revolution, provided the armed services with a pretext for launching military coups to oust populist leaders. Although the prevalent instability in several Latin American nations can be regarded as the unfortunate legacy of populism in that region, the movement had positive repercussions as well. Above all, the populist era ushered in mass participation in the electoral process on an unprecedented scale. The vote was extended to lower- and working-class citizens as well as to women, and these formerly marginalized groups were drawn into the realm of public discourse and debate. Additionally, the effort to integrate and unite various classes through an inclusive national identity fostered a revived interest in native culture that has continued to the present day. Further reading: Burns, E. Bradford. Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History. 6th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1994; Conniff, Michael L., ed. Latin American Populism in Comparative Perspective. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982; Tenenbaum, Barbara A., ed. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. Boston: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1996; Vanden, Harry E., and Gary Prevost. Politics of Latin America: The Power Game. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002; Wynia, Gary W. The Politics of Latin American Development. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Kathleen Ruppert Latin American populism 207 Latin American U.S. interventions On September 20, 2006, the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, addressed the United Nations General Assembly and spoke of the “hegemonic pretensions of the American empire.” In a speech that also referred to the president of the United States as a devil, Chavez gave voice to what many Latin Americans may have felt at one time or another in the nearly 200 years of U.S.- Latin American relations. Those relations have been characterized by the dynamic of a much stronger nation imposing its will on a collection of states that, in most instances, had no choice but to comply. Making the situation more complex, American intervention, while frequent and used to gain political, military, and economic benefi ts for itself, has also been frequently mixed with an honest desire to improve life for Latin Americans. Latin America, including South America and the Caribbean, which have Spanish, Portuguese, and French as their native languages, achieved its independence from Europe a generation after the United States. By the 1820s, most of these nations were independent, but that was in jeopardy when a group of European powers styling themselves as the Holy Alliance embarked on a program of undermining U.S. infl uence and exploiting the newly independent nations of Latin America. The American response was issued in 1823 in a statement by the American president in what has since been referred to as the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, which stated that European powers were not to intervene in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, was the point at which the United States began to exert a sometimes indirect, sometimes interventionist, policy of exercising control over the economics and politics of Latin America. Through the years the imperative behind America’s action as well as the corollaries or interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine have changed, but the willingness of the United States to intervene in Latin American affairs has been a constant. MEXICO Mexico, “so far from God, so close to the United States,” was the fi rst Latin American nation to be fully affected by American diplomacy and military action. After winning its independence from Spain, Mexico took possession of a large portion of what would become the southwestern part of the United States. In order to secure its northern border from the Indians, Mexico in the 1820s invited American settlers to come to Texas. The results of that policy fi nally resulted, in 1836, with the loss of that part of Mexico when Texas seceded and became an independent republic. Mexico could tolerate, though just barely, this independent entity on its border, but the likelihood of Texas becoming part of the United States was unacceptable. Texas did become a state in 1845, and a border clash between Mexican and U.S. troops sent to guard the border in 1846 began the Mexican- American War. The American army, by a series of brilliant campaigns, won that confl ict and as a result took approximately one-third of Mexico’s territory. While the victory was total, it was not without diffi culty, and the victory of the United States had not been a foregone conclusion. The war demonstrated that the very high technical and tactical profi ciency of the Americans and their ability to project their forces over great distances made them the most signifi cant force in the Western Hemisphere. In the last part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, Mexico remained fairly stable until a revolution in 1914. To keep Europeans from intervening on the side of the Huerta government, President Woodrow Wilson sent military forces to capture the port city of Veracruz. This was done, and when American troops left they turned warehouses with arms over to the Carranzista, anti-Huerta forces. In 1916, the Mexican leader Pancho Villa attacked the American town of Columbus, New Mexico. This attack met with the response of an American expeditionary force unsuccessfully attempting to capture Villa. The expeditionary force stayed until January 1917. Just prior to World War I, Germany offered Mexico the opportunity to retake the land it had lost in the 1840s if it would assist Germany against the United States. This offer, known as the Zimmermann Telegram, alienated U.S. relations with Germany, helping lead to America’s entry into the war. In the years after the war, Mexican and American relations were brittle until Franklin Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy of 1934 was tested by the Mexicans. In 1938, the Mexican government took possession of all private petroleum company holdings. Franklin Roosevelt did not intervene militarily or diplomatically to retrieve American assets that had been nationalized. The signifi cance of this action, so different from prior American actions, raised the credibility of Roosevelt’s policy in Latin America as well as improving America’s image in the region. CUBA America’s expressed interest can be dated to at least as far back as the 1850s. The Ostend Manifesto, a document 208 Latin American U.S. interventions drawn up by three American diplomats in 1854, was a plan to either purchase Cuba or take it from Spain. The plan never came to fruition because, among other reasons, the assumption underlying its annexation was that it would become a slave state. American interest waned in the following years but by the 1880s and 1890s had revived. Many members of Congress were on record as desiring to go to war with Spain to take Cuba. The president at that time, Grover Cleveland, stated that if Congress declared war nothing would happen because he would not mobilize troops to gain Cuba, an interesting and rare instance of deliberately not seeking to infl uence a Latin American region. By the William McKinley administration, however, popular opinion in America, encouraged by the prowar “Yellow Press,” was in support of just such a venture. All that was needed was a pretext, and when the U.S. battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor, Americans had their war. In the end, Cuba received its freedom, but the United States exercised considerable control for the fi rst third of the 20th century. A written statement known as the Platt Amendment to the Cuban constitution gave the United States fi nancial control as well as the right to intervene in Cuba’s affairs. In 1934, as part of Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy, the Platt Amendment was revoked. Until that time, however, U.S. control was exercised on a number of occasions to include the deployment of American troops from 1906 to 1909 and again in 1912 and 1917. Cuba operated as a dictatorship through the 1920s through 1950s, but toward the end of this period there started to be serious opposition. Fidel Castro, a Cuban revolutionary who had been imprisoned earlier and then left for exile in Mexico, returned to Cuba in 1956 and by January 1, 1959 had established control over the government. HAITI AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC The island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean is the location of two nations that have seen U.S. interventions on many occasions: the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Haiti was originally a French colony on the western part of the island that won its independence from France in 1804. The Dominican Republic won its independence in 1844, returned voluntarily to Spanish rule for two years in the 1860s, and reestablished its independence in 1865. Both nations are highly agricultural and since the 19th century have been of great interest to the United States. In the 1870s, there was some interest on the part of the United States in annexing the Dominican Republic, an idea that died when faced by the prospect of integrating an area with a Spanish culture into the U.S. political system. The United States maintained a high degree of economic interest and sent troops to keep order in 1904, 1905, 1912, 1914, and 1917 through 1924. From 1917 to 1922, the U.S. military used aircraft for the fi rst time to support counterinsurgency operations. Stability was maintained with the rise of Rafael Trujillo, who ruled from 1931 until his assassination by the CIA in 1960. Haiti’s liberation was led by a former slave named Toussaint Louverture. In the 19th century the government was not stable, but the unrest was suffi ciently low in intensity to allow substantial foreign investment. A combination of wishing to safeguard investments and curbing European infl uence led the United States to intervene in 1915. In that year the president of Haiti was overthrown and killed. Woodrow Wilson sent in both ships and ground troops to keep order. Through 1918, the marines were very busy in stabilizing operations and managed to impose a degree of stability, although they remained in that country until 1934. U.S. troops departed the country, but the United States would control the country’s fi nances until 1947. PANAMA What is now the nation of Panama was originally part of Colombia. The U.S. interest in this region dated back to the time of the California gold rush, which had commenced in 1849. With the fl ood of Americans traveling to fi nd gold, crossing through Panama (or Nicaragua) became one of the main ways to get to the West. By 1855, the United States signed a 20-year agreement with Colombia to allow Americans to cross without paying fees. There was soon a railroad running from Panama’s east coast, where passengers would leave ships to cross the isthmus and then embark on ships docked on the west coast to continue the journey. Nicaragua had also been a transportation link, but Panama was where the fi rst attempts at a canal were made. An attempt to dig a canal in Panama in the late 19th century added to this interest. In 1903, the United States encouraged a revolt and assisted by sending 10 warships to the area. The effect was to keep the Colombians from sending help to their army fi ghting the rebels. The canal itself was bounded on each side by land under U.S. administration and known as the Canal Zone. There were also forts in the area to safeguard the canal from internal or external attack and as bases for counterinsurgency operations. Latin American U.S. interventions 209 NICARAGUA Nicaragua, the focus of so much U.S. attention and intervention in the 1980s, was also an area of American political and economic interest in the 19th century. Like Panama, crossing Nicaragua was relatively easy and served as a way for gold seekers on their way to California to reach the gold fi elds without taking the long and dangerous journey around Cape Horn. William Walker briefl y set up a government there and tried to get Nicaragua admitted to the union. Nicaragua, while it never entered the union, was treated as an area in which Americans could do as they wished. On one occasion in 1853, an American gunboat commander, having a disagreement with a village on the coast, fi red upon it on his own authority. His action was approved by Franklin Pierce, the president of the United States at the time. By the beginning of the 20th century, the stability of Nicaragua, particularly as an area of American investments and other economic activity (such as the United Fruit Company) justifi ed intervention in the minds of Americans. American troops were sent into Nicaragua in 1909–10, 1912–25, and 1926–33. In the latter intervention, the United States assisted the Nicaraguan government against the rebel leader Augusto Sandino, who would become the namesake not only of his contemporary rebels but also of a later generation of foes to American policy in the 1980s. In the 1930s, the U.S. government supported the Somoza family (who had executed Sandino in 1934), which ultimately ruled Nicaragua from 1936 until the late 1970s. CONCLUSION The economic interests and dollar diplomacy were replaced after World War II by the concern that Latin America could come under control of the Soviet Union. That cold war imperative has since become dominated by concerns with terrorism, illegal immigration, and the drug cartels. Based on past history, it may be safe to assume that any relations between the United States and Latin America will not be a meeting of equals. Further reading: Berger, Mark T. Under Northern Eyes: Latin American Studies and U.S. Hegemony in the Americas, 1898-1990. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995; Bohning, Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba, 1959–1965. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2005; Brewer, Stewart. Borders and Bridges: A History of U.S.-Latin American Relations. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006; McCann, Frank D. The Brazilian-American Alliance, 1937–1945. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973; Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy Toward Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Robert Stacy Laurier, Wilfrid (1841–1919) Canadian prime minister Wilfrid Laurier, a political child of the 19th century, led his Liberal Party into the 20th century as Canada’s fi rst French-Canadian prime minister. Equally adept both in his native French and in English, Laurier promoted growth in prairie provinces and predicted a golden century for Canada. But his leadership foundered on trade and military issues related to U.S. economic power and British imperialism. Laurier became politically active while at Montreal’s McGill University. As a young lawyer he joined the Parti Rouge, Québec’s homegrown liberal organization. He spoke eloquently against the 1867 British North America Act, which created a confederated Canada. Months before it became law he wrote, “Confederation is the second stage on the road to ‘anglifi cation.’ . . . We are being handed over to the English majority. . . .” His embrace of French-Canadian separatism proved a passing phase. Winning election to Québec’s provincial parliament, Laurier worked to make Canada’s new federal system advantageous to fellow French speakers. He also began to develop a new kind of politics, similar to that of Britain’s Whigs, and cofounded the Parti National to attract like-minded politicians. When a railway scandal brought down John A. Macdonald’s Liberal-Conservative government in 1873, Laurier won a seat in parliament. By 1877 the young Liberal headed the internal revenue ministry and had been chosen to lead his party. Although the Liberals were soon swept out of power by a resurgent Macdonald, Laurier remained as leader and was well positioned to take advantage of Conservative fatigue after Macdonald’s death in 1891. Laurier became prime minister in 1896. Among Laurier’s goals during his 15-year tenure were trade reciprocity with the United States and robust western immigration and agricultural development. Like Theodore Roosevelt, his counterpart to the south, Laurier sought to safeguard Canada’s environment. He reached out to labor interests while cautiously reining in corporate abuses. To foster western growth, Laurier proposed a second transcontinental railway. It 210 Laurier, Wilfrid was, like its predecessor, beset by competing interests, but Laurier crafted a compromise that made the Canadian National Railway a reality. In 1905 he overcame tough opposition to create the western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Although knighted during Queen Victoria’s 1897 Jubilee, Laurier encountered diffi culties with Britain that were only partly due to his continuing French- Canadian attachments. The British Empire was at its pre–World War I zenith. Laurier’s compliance with British demands for Canadian soldiers in the 1899 Boer War outraged nationalists, especially in Quebec. His 1909 proposal to create a semiautonomous Canadian navy deeply alarmed Britain and many Anglo- Canadians, showing that Canada, for all its growth, remained dependent. The United States also disappointed Laurier and helped bring an end to his government. An Alaskan boundary dispute, made urgent by the 1897 gold rush in Canada’s neighboring Yukon Territory, ended with most Canadian claims denied. In 1911 Laurier negotiated an agreement that would have been the fi rst comprehensive trade measure between the two nations since 1866. But Conservatives, joined by many of Laurier’s Liberals, attacked the reciprocity pact as a sell-out that portended Canada’s annexation. Within weeks it and Laurier’s government had failed. Laurier remained party leader until his death of a cerebral hemorrhage but never again held power. Thousands accompanied his funeral bier to Notre-Dame Cemetery in Ottawa, where he had spent the best and worst years of his life. Further reading: Clippingdale, Richard. Laurier: His Life and World. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979; Schull, Joseph. Laurier: The First Canadian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965. Marsha E. Ackermann Lawrence, T. E. (1888–1935) British offi cer and writer Thomas Edward Lawrence, the second of fi ve sons of his unmarried parents, was born on August 16, 1888, in Tremadoc, Wales, and died on May 19, 1935, in Dorset, England. From 1896 to 1907 he attended the Oxford High School for Boys, where he made rapid academic progress. His major interests included military archaeology, brass rubbing, and coin collecting. Owing to these interests he became friends with D. G. Hogarth, keeper of the Ashmolean Museum. From 1907 to 1910 Lawrence studied at Oxford, where his mentor, Hogarth, encouraged his interest in the Arabic language and the Near East. After graduation Lawrence worked for three years under Hogarth and C. Leonard Woolley at a dig at the ancient Hittite city of Carchemish in Mesopotamia. Early in 1914 Lawrence was involved in a survey of the desert that was actually a cover for British intelligence spying on the Turkish defenses in southern Palestine. In World War I Lawrence served as a captain in the British military intelligence service operating out of Cairo, where he made maps and had contact with spies. In 1916 he was transferred to the Arab Bureau, a branch of the intelligence service concerned exclusively with Arab affairs, particularly with the revolt of Sherif Husayn of Mecca against the Ottoman Empire. Prince Faysal, son of Sherif Husayn, was chosen by Lawrence to lead the revolt with British backing. During the revolt, Lawrence donned Arab dress and was given the nickname “Lawrence of Arabia.” His preferred method of warfare included railway attacks and guerrilla warfare instead of more conventional methods of war. With the help of Auda abu Tayi, the Homeric Bedouin desert fi ghter, Lawrence devised a brilliant plan of attack on Aqaba against the Turks. He gradually progressed from being an adviser and observer to being one of the principal participants in the revolt. In the midst of the revolt, Lawrence was captured at Deraa after a failed raid on the bridges over the Yarmuk River. During his capture he was tortured and sexually abused by the Turks. In January 1919 Lawrence began writing the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which he continued revising until 1926. The book was an account of his time spent during the Arab revolt, included essays on military strategy, and also served as a vehicle for expressing his bitterness toward the political outcome in the Arab provinces. His bitterness stemmed in part from his position as Faysal’s adviser during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, in which he watched France gain control over Syria despite promises made to Faysal by Lawrence and the British government. In January 1921 Lawrence became an adviser to Winston Churchill in the Colonial Offi ce. He resigned in1922, declaring that he was satisfi ed that Britain had fulfi lled its promises to the Arabs by placing Faysal in control of Iraq and by installing Abdullah on the throne of Transjordan. In August 1922 Lawrence, under the name John Hume Ross, joined the Royal Air Force. In January 1923 he was discharged after reporters discovered his Lawrence, T. E. 211 real identity. A month after being dismissed by the air force, Lawrence reenlisted in the Tank Corps under the name T. E. Shaw. He stayed until 1925, when he succeeded in getting himself retransferred to the Royal Air Force serving in India. In January 1929 he was ordered back to England, where he remained in the Royal Air Force until shortly before his death. On May 13, 1935, T. E. Lawrence was fatally injured while speeding on his Brough Superior motorcycle in Dorset, and six days later he died. See also Hashemite dynasty in Iraq; Hashemite monarchy in Jordan; Sherif Husayn–McMahon correspondence. Further reading: Lawrence, T. E. Seven Pillars of Wisdom. New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1935; Wilson, Jeremy. Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorized Biography of T.E. Lawrence. New York: Atheneum, 1990. Brian M. Eichstadt League of Nations Founded on idealism and championed by U.S. president Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points plan for international peace, the League of Nations foundered on the geopolitical realities of the interwar period. Designed to prevent war as a means of resolving disputes between countries, the league proved unable to halt the Italian conquest of Ethiopia, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, or Nazi Germany’s rearmament. Yet even given its failures the League of Nations inspired leaders to rethink traditional diplomatic practices and embodied the pacifi c, cooperative ideals that another generation would try to realize through the United Nations. Prior to the league’s creation, international relations had been the province of ambassadors exchanged between governments who then lived in the country to which they had been posted. Although these diplomatic procedures did not disappear, the league sought to build on another, more recent development in diplomacy: the international conference. Institutions such as the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague had lacked the power to halt the slide into World War I. Nevertheless, international conferences of the later 19th and early 20th centuries had established rules for war, standard time, and policies on matters of common interest. The league’s creators drew upon such precedents, though the great powers themselves did not abandon the more traditional modes of secret diplomacy. The idea for the league came originally from Woodrow Wilson, who wished to create a real and lasting peace. The creation of the league was an integral part of his Fourteen Points and was the only point to be approved by the Allies. At home, a group of senators and representatives headed by Henry Cabot Lodge opposed U.S. membership in the league and effectively prevented the country from joining. In Wilson’s vision, the League of Nations would act as a force to prevent the outbreak of war and create stability on the global stage. The covenant upon which negotiators agreed in 1919 included article 10, in which league members undertook collectively to defend “the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members.” Actual practice departed from this principle, in part because article 5 required binding resolutions to receive unanimous consent and in part because the league had no army in its service nor any other means to impose its will on an aggressor. When the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty and refused membership in the League of Nations, the institution experienced a signifi cant setback in its efforts to acquire legitimacy and real power to pursue its peaceful agenda. The League of Nations was composed of a secretariat, a council, and an assembly. Sir Eric Drummond, formerly of the British Foreign Offi ce, served as secretary-general for the fi rst 14 years (1919–33) and helped to attract 675 men and women to work as an international civil service. The council met at least annually. At its foundation the body included France, Britain, and Italy as permanent members, along with other smaller powers. The council grew to 10 in 1922 and to 14 in 1926, when the additional members were supposed to counterbalance Germany’s admission to the council. The membership of the assembly was largely European and South American, as most African and many Asian countries remained under European rule until after World War II. Although best known for its failures in the area of collective security, the league began its existence with several successes. The league council prevented war between Sweden and Finland over the Aaland Islands (1920), between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia (1921), and between Greece and Bulgaria over the exact location of their shared border (1925). This raised some questions about whether the league would be able to deal with disputes that touched the interests of a country such as Britain or France. In fact, the great powers continued to pursue old-fashioned diplomacy and treaties, such as the Locarno agreements. 212 League of Nations Britain would not accept measures to reinforce the league’s powers to react against aggression. The leaguesponsored Disarmament Conference met during the late 1920s and early 1930s until Hitler withdrew Germany from the conference and from the league in 1933. The weaknesses of the league became especially apparent in 1931. During its meeting in Geneva, the assembly learned that Japan had begun to attack the Chinese in Manchuria. As the days passed news grew worse, and the Chinese representative called upon the league council to authorize a response. After vacillating and accepting disingenuous assurances from the Japanese representative about his country’s intentions, the league sent a commission of inquiry under Lord Lytton that arrived in April 1932. The Japanese army already exercised effective control over much of “Manchukuo.” The Lytton Commission submitted a 100,000-word report on September 4, 1932. The assembly accepted its conclusion that the Japanese had violated the league covenant. It condemned the aggression against China but did nothing further. Japan simply withdrew from the league in March 1933. Similar instances of impotence occurred after Italy invaded league member Ethiopia in 1935. Pierre Laval, the French foreign minister, and Sir Samuel Hoare, his British counterpart, went outside of the league framework to seek ways to appease Benito Mussolini, to serve their own interests, and to avoid war. These secret negotiations later became public knowledge, much to the chagrin of the participants, but the unwillingness of Britain and France to support the league did not change. The league fi rst attempted conciliation and then studied the crisis. The assembly agreed that blame fell upon Italy, yet it could do nothing more than impose economic sanctions. The completion of Italian conquest indicated the failure of the sanctions, so the British pressed for them to be lifted in 1935. League members quietly accepted Italy’s annexation of Ethiopia. The League of Nations continued to meet in the late 1930s. It dissolved in 1946, when the United Nations came into existence. Founders of the United Nations attempted to learn from the supposed shortcomings of the league, especially with regard to collective security and the composition of the council. Further reading: Bendiner, Elmer. A Time for Angels: The Tragicomic History of the League of Nations. New York: Knopf, 1975; Dexter, Byron Vinson. The Years of Opportunity: The League of Nations, 1920–1926. New York: Viking Press, 1967; Scott, George. The Rise and Fall of the League of Nations. New York: Macmillan, 1974; Walters, F. P. A History of the League of Nations. London: Oxford University Press, 1952. Melanie A. Bailey Lebanese independence and the Confessional System The Lebanese Confessional System refers to the political and legal structuring of the Republic of Lebanon according to religious affi liations. The Lebanese government acknowledges over 17 different religious sects, but the main divide is between Christians and Muslims. The Confessional System was introduced prior to Lebanon’s independence during the years of the French mandate (1917–1943). The French colonial authorities distributed governmental posts based on the population count in the 1932 census, which favored Christians over Muslims in a 6 to 5 ratio. There was not another census for the rest of the century. By the time Lebanon gained independence in 1943, the Lebanese population had become further polarized and identifi ed along confessional lines. In 1943, the independent Lebanese state enacted the National Pact (Al-Mithaq al-Watani), reinforcing the sectarian system of government by distributing the three top political positions along confessional lines. The national pact is an unwritten agreement and the result of numerous meetings between Lebanon’s fi rst president, Bishara al-Khoury (a Maronite Christian), and the fi rst prime minister, Riyad Al-Solh (a Sunni Muslim). Khoury and Solh allocated government posts in a confessional manner in an attempt to please all religious communities and guarantee their participation in the newborn state. The prime position of president was reserved for Christian Maronites, the post of prime minister was allocated to a Sunni Muslim, the position of speaker of the parliament was allocated to Shi’i Muslims, and the titles of deputy speaker of the house and deputy prime minister went to Greek Orthodox Christians. The core of the national pact aimed to address the Christians’ fear of being overwhelmed by the Muslim communities in Lebanon and the surrounding Arab countries, Syria in particular, and the Muslims’ fear of Western hegemony. In return for the Christian promise not to seek foreign—specifi cally French—protection and to accept Lebanon’s “Arab face,” the Muslim side agreed to recognize the independence and legitimacy Lebanese independence and the Confessional System 213 of the Lebanese state in the 1920 boundaries and to renounce aspirations for union with Syria. In addition to the national pact, the parliamentary electoral law equally enforced the sectarian system. The representatives in the parliament were divided equally between Christians and Muslims by the Taif Accord, with each sect occupying seats in proportion to the population percentage. The religious communities represented in parliament, with the number of seats each occupies, is as follows: Maronite Christians (34), Sunni Muslims (27), Shi’i Muslims (27), Greek Orthodox (14), Greek Catholics (8), Druze (8), Armenian Orthodox (5), Alawites (2), Armenian Catholics (1), Protestants (1), and other Christian groups (1). The confessional system outlined in the national pact was a pragmatic interim to override philosophical divisions between Christian and Muslim leaders at the time of the French withdrawal and independence. However, the frequent political disputes in recent history, the 1958 civil war, and the far bloodier 1975 civil war are testaments to the failure of the national pact to achieve the anticipated social and political integration. Further reading: Johnson, Michael. All the Honorable Men: The Social Origins of the War in Lebanon. London: I. B. Tauris, 2001; Khashan, Hilal. Inside the Lebanese Confessional Mind. New York: University Press of America, 1992; Zisser, Eyal. Lebanon: The Challenge of Independence. London: I. B. Tauris, 2000. Ramzi Abou Zeineddine Lenin, Vladimir (1870–1924) Russian revolutionary leader Among the savviest and most single-minded politicians of the 20th century, Vladimir Lenin capitalized on the chaos in Russia caused by World War I and the resentments spawned by the advent of industrial capitalism. By imposing discipline and a radical agenda on his Bolshevik Party and by providing a clear alternative to the repressive autocracy that had acquiesced before, if not abetted, Russian economic and social backwardness, Lenin acquired the power to lead his country toward socialism. The Soviet regime established after the Russian Revolution in 1917 did not meet Lenin’s ideals, but he continued to strive to enact the reforms he deemed necessary for modernizing Russian culture, the economy, and society. Ruthless yet compassionate, pragmatic yet idealistic, Lenin was a paradox who knew how to recognize the opportunity for revolution when others did not. Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov grew up in Simbirsk, on the Volga, where his father was a school inspector. Born on April 22, 1870, he had two brothers and three sisters with whom he had a close relationship. Along with others of similar education and professional attainments, Lenin’s father hoped for major reforms to the Russian political, economic, and social systems. Yet Lenin’s revolutionary aspirations and Marxist principles, which were avidly supported by his sisters, far transcended the reformist goals of his father. Around 1886 Lenin began to develop his political thought and committed to revolution as a means of bringing about substantive, profound change in Russia. His brother Alexander was arrested in that year for having plotted to assassinate Czar Alexander III; his execution marked the young Vladimir and made him more politically conscious. He yearned for an end to crass materialism, the sexual double standard, and the corrupt values of late 19th-century Russia. Perhaps as a consequence of his brother’s experience, Vladimir opted against terrorism and assassination; instead he cultivated the persona of a self-conscious, professional revolutionary. As a consequence of his brother’s conviction, Lenin endured police surveillance. Although he was among the best students in Russia, he could not obtain a place at any of the major universities; he settled for the local university in Kazan. He was soon expelled, however, along with all “risky” students. He later studied law by correspondence at the University of Saint Petersburg, but conventional careers were clearly closed to him. As he began his sporadic work as a legal assistant in late 1893, Lenin continued his voracious reading. He delved even further and more deeply into the works of intellectuals such as George Plekhanov, the founding father of Russian social democracy, and Karl Marx. In 1889 he translated the Communist Manifesto. While Lenin continued to mourn the loss of his much-loved sister Olga, who died in 1891, he met the woman who would become his longtime companion and wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya. Together they studied Marx, contemplated social democratic strategy, and started to practice the tactics required of political subversives in czarist Russia. Around the same time Lenin appeared in police surveillance records on his own account, having defended Marxist views in a debate 214 Lenin, Vladimir with a populist in 1894. He also wrote his fi rst pamphlets and articles around this time. Lenin made his fi rst trip outside Russia in 1895, when he met with social democrats such as Wilhelm Liebknecht in Germany and Paul Laforgue in France. Upon his return to Russia, he cofounded a social democratic group and established a newspaper. These activities attracted police attention, and Lenin was arrested in December along with many of his colleagues. He spent about a year in Saint Petersburg, where he was interrogated four times, before being sentenced to three years in Siberia. Krupskaya was arrested while Lenin was in jail, and she received permission to join him in exile. Lenin spent the years in Siberia (1897–1900) reading, writing, and giving legal advice to local peasants. He began to develop his own interpretations of Marxism and to interpret Russian conditions in that light. Lenin and other Russian social democrats rejected the populist argument that peasants were proto-communists. Lenin rigorously opposed the notion that socialism would “just happen” or even come about as a consequence of a series of incremental reforms to capitalism. He maintained that both dramatic political change and dramatic socioeconomic change would have to occur; social democrats had to fi ght for them all simultaneously. Lenin’s perspective was infl uenced by the ideas of Russian revolutionary and anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, who had focused criticism on the state and the church as the major sources of oppression in Russia. Lenin shared Bakunin’s antipathy toward religion and the Russian Orthodox Church, though he thought that the state could be captured and directed to serve the working class. STRONG EXECUTIVE When Lenin fi nished his period of exile in Siberia, he settled briefl y in Pskov, where he worked in the Bureau of Statistics. He visited Nuremberg, Munich, Vienna, London, and other European cities. After he and Krupskaya settled in Geneva, they became central to the project of building an effective, disciplined Russian social democratic party. Although Lenin occasionally sought reconciliation, the 1903 split between his Bolsheviks and the more reformist Mensheviks became permanent. Lenin averred that Russian social democracy most needed a tightly disciplined party with a strong executive. As events showed, his organizational model proved valid. The Russian Revolution of 1905 disappointed Russian radicals and revolutionaries, though they did fi nd their way back into the country for a few years. Lenin saw the beginnings of a bourgeois revolution, though the ephemeral character of constitutional reforms granted by the czar indicated that Russians had much revolutionary ground yet to travel. After returning to exile in Europe, where he would remain for the decade prior to 1917, Lenin resumed his efforts to push Russia out of its czarist rut. The International Socialist Bureau did not recognize Lenin as sole leader of the Russian socialists, though he did gain control over the key newspapers of the group. In the years prior to World War I, Lenin organized, read, and wrote. He published articles on party organization, socialism, religion (in which he recommended that the party oppose religion, even as a private affair), and socialism in Asia. The outbreak of World War I found Lenin and Krupskaya in Kraków, Poland. Lenin had taken an interest in the implications of foreign affairs for social democracy in Russia since the turn of the century, and he reservedly predicted that the war would hasten the advent of socialism in Europe. Although unafraid of class, civil, or revolutionary wars if they would promote socialism, Lenin could not abide imperialist, bourgeois international wars. Lenin envisioned a Socialist International that would recognize national cultures as equal and sovereign while emphasizing the shared character of the socialist struggle. Lenin continued and further elaborated his thought on wars and the overall international situation in Imperialism (published in 1917) and State and Revolution. When the revolutionary year of 1917 dawned, Lenin seemed a rather marginal fi gure on the Russian political stage. Having been out of Russia for decades and with only a relatively small group of ardent supporters, Lenin returned to Petrograd in April with apparently little prospect of acquiring power. He surprised even his allies, many of whom had greeted him upon his arrival at Finland Station, with his April Theses; the party did not fall into line with his radical demands until three weeks of debate had passed. Lenin’s refusal to endorse participation in the provisional government contravened the desire of many Bolsheviks (including Joseph Stalin) to exercise infl uence in any way they could. He advocated an immediate end to Russian participation in World War I. GRADUAL SOCIALISM He encouraged Bolsheviks to cultivate close relations with the soviets that had formed in the cities and the countryside. Lenin wanted to destroy the state institutions that were oppressing Russians, though he did not Lenin, Vladimir 215 state that he aimed to eliminate the police, the bureaucracy, and the army for good. Lenin further recommended the confi scation and redistribution of landed estates; he hoped to prevent small peasant farms from replacing them by immediately nationalizing the land. He planned to introduce socialism gradually, fi rst by giving control over production and distribution to the soviets of workers’ deputies. As the days and months of 1917 passed, Lenin became an increasingly important leader, even after the provisional government began to hound the Bolsheviks. His decisive moves to capitalize on the weakness of that government enabled his party to seize power in October, even though the Bolsheviks had not yet converted even a minority of Russians to their ideology. The Bolsheviks did not have control over the countryside in 1917 or immediately thereafter, with the result that peasants had proceeded to form smallholdings; some of them had already begun to amass considerable acreage. Hence, collectivization could not occur as Lenin had hoped. The Ukraine and other provinces under the control of the Russian government experienced a revival of nationalist sentiment. The economy remained in shambles. World War I had already demonstrated the incapacity of Russian infrastructure and industry to provide for the people, but Russia’s gross national product suffered even further after the Bolsheviks gave control of factories to workers who had no training in management and little real knowledge of the overall production process. Lastly, the party abandoned real democracy; Lenin declared that the Bolsheviks had to direct the government and the economy until such time as the Russian people had experience with the new system and had enough education to appreciate the communist ideal. The Bolsheviks enacted legislation that gave equal rights to women, though the people had not pushed for such changes. Lenin suffered a debilitating stroke in 1923 after having previously suffered two less harmful attacks. By that time the Communist government had yielded to political and economic pressure as well as the reality of food shortages and lack of industrial supplies, by enacting the New Economic Policy. Lenin and his supporters intended for such reforms to ease nationalization, collectivization, and the end of private enterprise, though they allowed for the latter and for small family farms in the short term as a means to generate 216 Lenin, Vladimir Revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin addresses the Second Soviet Congress in Smolny Palace, St. Petersburg, October 25–26, 1917. Lenin called not only for the end of czarist rule in Russia but also more ambitiously, he envisoned worldwide worker revolution. the national wealth needed to effect the transition to communism. Before Lenin died he had already surrendered real, everyday control over the government. He had not appointed a successor; his close associates Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin each viewed themselves as such, along with several other aspirants. When he died in 1924, Lenin had effected a revolution that had radically changed perceptions of Russia and its prospects for the future. Whether his successors could realize the potential of the revolution and the promise of communism remained unknown. Further reading: Read, Christopher. Lenin. London: Routledge, 2005; Service, Robert. Lenin: A Life. London: Belknap, 2002; White, James. Lenin: The Practice and Theory of Revolution. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001; Williams, Beryl. Lenin. London: Pearson Longman, 2000. Melanie A. Bailey Lewis, John L. (1880–1969) American labor leader John L. Lewis, longtime president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and cofounder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), was the United States’ most powerful labor leader during the Great Depression. In 1933 he played a central role in the development of New Deal legislation that affected workers. He successfully lobbied the administration of Franklin Roosevelt to include a provision, section 7a, in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) that guaranteed workers the right to organize their own unions and to undertake collective bargaining with their employers. Lewis used the NIRA as a springboard to organize more than 95 percent of the nation’s bituminous miners. As one of the founders of the CIO in 1935, Lewis sought to organize workers in a wide variety of occupations, ranging from longshoremen to actors. He focused particularly on mass-production workers in U.S. heavy industries. This defi ed the agenda of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which traditionally organized only skilled craft workers. Lewis gained vital federal and state support for the militant auto workers in Michigan who undertook a daring sit-down strike against General Motors in 1937. As a result of the strike, the automobile industry was forced to recognize the legitimacy of the United Automobile Workers (UAW). The same year Lewis negotiated employer recognition of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC), in a steel industry that was notoriously hostile to union activity. By the end of 1937, approximately one of every four U.S. nonagricultural workers belonged to a union. Lewis’s infl uence waned during the late 1930s, when he was an ardent isolationist. He correctly foresaw that if the United States became involved in World War II, the Roosevelt administration would neglect its progressive domestic agenda in favor of building consensus support for the war effort. Lewis considered this to be a betrayal of the New Deal, and he shocked many of his cohorts when he endorsed Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie in 1940. In 1942 he withdrew the UMWA from the CIO because he felt that CIO leaders had lost their autonomy by supporting the administration. As a result, Lewis and the UMWA became isolated from much of the labor movement. Throughout the 1940s, he led a series of widely unpopular strikes, cementing his reputation as an adversary of federal power. Much hated by Harry S. Truman, in 1946 he defi ed a federal injunction to end a nationwide coal strike, for which he received enormous fi nes. Historians fi nd signifi cant contradictions in Lewis’s career. After successfully collaborating with the Roosevelt administration to win unprecedented legitimacy for unions, he became a vehement critic of government-labor alliances. Although he helped to empower millions of workers, he ran the UMWA with autocratic authority. Further reading: Dubofsky, Melvyn, and Warren Van Tine. John L. Lewis: A Biography. New York: New York Times/ Quadrangle, 1977; Singer, Alan J. “‘Something of a Man’: John L. Lewis, the UMWA, and the CIO, 1919–1943.” In The United Mine Workers of America: A Model of Industrial Solidarity? edited by John H. M. Laslett. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996; Zieger, Robert H. John L. Lewis: Labor Leader. Boston: Twayne, 1988. Tom Collins Lindbergh, Charles (1902–1974) aviator The best-known pilot in the world both in his lifetime and in the annals of history, Charles Lindbergh started out as a barnstormer in a World War I surplus biplane he bought while working as an airline mechanic in Lindbergh, Charles 217 Montana. The postwar years saw a great deal of public fascination with fl ight and with pilots, as the war had put the airplane in the spotlight. Lindbergh came to fame in 1927 when he won the $25,000 prize offered eight years earlier by French businessman Raymond Orteig for making the fi rst nonstop fl ight from New York City to Paris, a 34-hour fl ight without rest. Lindbergh was received as a hero, bringing still more respect and attention to aviation while demonstrating the spirit of individualism of which Americans were so enamored. In an age of celebrity, when writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald spent much of their time on magazine covers, Lindbergh was a star, which made his 20-month-old son Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., a prime target for kidnapping. For two months and 10 days, the world followed the course of the investigation: The baby disappeared sometime between nine and 10 at night, and a note demanding $50,000 in small bills was found outside the nursery window. Four colonels participated in the investigation, liaisons were appointed to speak to the leaders of organized crime, and President Herbert Hoover himself was notifi ed within hours of the kidnapping. Eventually, a baby’s body was found fi ve miles from the Lindbergh home; two years later German immigrant Bruno Hauptmann was found with some of the marked ransom money, arrested, and eventually executed. To this day, the evidence convicting Hauptmann of murder remains scant, and there is no forensic evidence that the baby was Charles, Jr.; though Lindbergh identifi ed the remains, animals had left so little recognizable that medical examiners were unable to even determine the child’s sex. The Lindberghs became more reclusive following the kidnapping, avoiding the public eye. Lindbergh supported isolationism in the years leading up to World War II and was widely suspected of Nazi sympathies, which led President Franklin Roosevelt to ban him from military service. Nevertheless, though Lindbergh believed in the superiority of some races over others, he condemned the Nazis’ treatment of Jews and spoke in support of African-American rights. Lindbergh died in Hawaii in 1974 after a quiet retirement. The Spirit of Saint Louis, the custom-built Ryan aircraft he used for his famous transatlantic fl ight, was donated to the Smithsonian Institution in 1928 and remains on display in the National Air and Space Museum in the main atrium— a position of honor shared by the fi rst supersonic craft and the fi rst privately funded spacecraft. Further reading: Berg, A. Scott. Lindbergh. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1998.; Cole, Wayne S. Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1974; Milton, Joyce. Loss of Eden: Lindbergh. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. Bill Kte’pi literature AMERICAN LITERATURE The 19th century saw the birth of science fi ction and the detective novel, the heavy use of American dialects and the vernacular by such authors as Mark Twain and George Washington Cable, and the psychologically complex novels of writers like Henry James. The 20th century continued these trends. For instance, the regional interest of the Southwest humorists and the local color school gave way to Edith Wharton’s examination of the eastern seaboard, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novels of New York and American expatriates, and William Faulkner’s stories of Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi. Faulkner often wrote not only in dialect that could at times be nearly impenetrable, he used the rambling stream of consciousness approach employed previously by James Joyce. In 1949 he won the Nobel Prize in literature for his contributions not only to American literature but to the world of letters. Two of his novels were awarded the Pulitzer Prize: A Fable and The Reivers, both of which are now considered minor works compared to The Sound and the Fury; Absalom, Absalom!; and As I Lay Dying. Social concerns became prominent in American literature in the early 20th century, with Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle—an attack on meat packing and on the ills of capitalism—an obvious example. Fitzgerald, John Dos Passos, Sherwood Anderson, John Steinbeck, Nathanael West, and Sinclair Lewis were deeply invested in their portraits of American life and American character. Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here warned against the possibility of a fascist regime in the United States. Gertrude Stein, meanwhile, coined the term the lost generation to refer to the American authors expatriated to Europe between World War I and the Great Depression. The Lost Generation included Stein, Hemingway, Anderson, Fitzgerald, Dos Passos, and the poets Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot, among others. Many of these authors drew not only on their European experiences but on nonliterary movements for inspiration in their work: Stein herself was fascinated by cubism, while Pound and Eliot were as infl u- 218 literature enced by painting, sculpture, and music as they were by other authors. The detective stories of Edgar Allan Poe and Britain’s Arthur Conan Doyle in the 19th century led to a boom in mysteries in the 20th century, which in the United States particularly included the “hard-boiled” genre epitomized by Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler. Other detective stories showed up in the pulps—cheap magazines and short novels, successors to the dime novels—alongside science fi ction, horror (including H. P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos stories), sword and sorcery such as Robert E. Howard’s Conan series, and adventure stories featuring jungle explorers, pilots, and crime fi ghters. The pulps, along with the newspaper comic strips now being nationally distributed, were a major infl uence on the comic books of the 1930s and 1940s, which saw the birth of Superman, Batman, Captain America, and others. The 1930s also saw the emergence of the golden age of science fi ction. The fi rst all science fi ction magazine— Amazing Stories—had been founded in 1926, but it was in the late 1930s, when John Campbell became editor of Astounding Science Fiction, that many of the greats of the genre came to prominence: Isaac Asimov, James Blish, and Robert Heinlein, among others. Campbellian science fi ction emphasized the wonder and ingenuity of scientifi c achievement rather than acting as cautionary tales or allegories. INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE With the advent of the new century, a number of annual literary prizes were created: the Nobel in 1901, the Prix Goncourt in 1903, and the Pulitzer Prize in 1917. Those who won were largely European or North American, with the Nobel Prize having a heavy weighting to northern Europe. In Britain there was a proliferation of literature that had backgrounds set during war, especially World War I and then World War II. Stories set in parts of the British Empire, both true and fi ctional, were very popular. One of the most prolifi c writers during this period was Rudyard Kipling, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1907 for his work. War stories were also popular in many other countries, with Henri Barbusse’s Under Fire (1917), R. C. Sherriff’s Journey’s End (1928), Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front (1929), and Jaroslav Hašek’s The Good Soldier Schweik (1939) all being translated into many languages. The reduction in the cost of printing, as well as increased literacy, saw a huge demand for adventure stories for children. These helped introduce young people to other parts of the world and historical periods, and they were matched by an increase in historical fi ction, with the Napoleonic era and the Roman Empire proving popular with novelists from Britain, France, Germany, and many other countries. By the 1940s many books were decorated by elaborate dust wrappers. In 1935 Allen Lane started Penguin Books, publishing works in cheaper paperback editions, a move quickly followed by many other publishers all around the world. The period from 1900 until 1950 also saw an increase in the production of plays by British and European playwrights, often leading to fi lms of the works. Some of the more popular plays were by writers such as George Bernard Shaw and John Galsworthy, both British Nobel laureates. There were also several new genres such as H. G. Wells’s The Time Machine (1895). Then there were those warning about the future such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s 1984 (1948). There were also some fantasy writers with literature 219 William Faulkner won the 1949 Nobel Prize in literature for his contribution to the world of letters. J. R. R. Tolkein’s The Hobbit (1937) becoming popular in the 1940s and C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950), leading, respectively, to further books on Middle Earth and Narnia. Lewis was a prominent writer on theology, and Bertrand Russell wrote philosophy, as did other writers such as Romain Rolland. There were also a few non-European writers who rose to prominence, the most famous probably being Rabindranath Tagore from India, who won the Nobel Prize in 1913. Further reading: Butcher, Phillip. The Ethnic Image in Modern American Literature, 1900–1950. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1977; Horsley, Lee. Fictions of Power in English Literature: 1900–1950. New York: Longmans, 1995; Leary, Lewis Gaston, ed. Articles on American Literature, 1900–1950. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1970; Scott-James, R. A. Fifty Years of English Literature, 1900–1950. New York: Longmans, 1964. Bill Kte’pi Lloyd George, David (1863–1945) British politician David Lloyd George was the most dominant fi gure in British politics in the fi rst quarter of the 20th century. Although Welsh on both sides of his family, he was actually born in Manchester, England, in 1863. His father, William George, then a headmaster of an elementary school in Manchester, died 17 months later, leaving his pregnant widow to raise the children. His mother, Elizabeth, took her family back to her home village of Llanystumdwy in north Wales to live with her bachelor brother, Richard Lloyd, a shoemaker and copastor of a little Baptist chapel. A Welsh nationalist and deeply religious, Richard Lloyd played an active role in the upbringing of young David, imbuing him with many of his formative beliefs. At the age of 14, David was apprenticed to one of the leading fi rms of solicitors in Portsmouth, passing his fi nal examinations in 1884. During the early years of his practice, he met and married Margaret Owen, who bore him two sons and three daughters. Bitten by the political bug while in his late teens, Lloyd George associated himself with the Liberal Party. In 1890 he was elected to Parliament for the Caernarfon Boroughs, a seat that he would retain for the next 55 years. A gifted speaker, audacious, and industrious, he soon became a leading spokesman for the radical wing of the party. As a pacifi st he inveighed against the immorality of the Boer War in South Africa and expressed sympathy for the Boer farmers. When the Liberals returned to power in 1905, Lloyd George was appointed president of the Board of Trade, a position he held for three years, during which he sponsored much important legislation. He took over as chancellor of the Exchequer at a time when the government needed to fi nd new sources of revenue to pay for the cost of social programs and additional battleships to keep ahead of the ambitious German naval program. Accordingly, his “peoples budget” in 1909 called for a heavy tax on unearned income such as inheritance, increased value of land, and investments. The House of Lords, which was dominated by Conservatives, vetoed the budget, defying the House of Commons’ traditional control of taxation. This provoked a constitutional crisis, forced two general elections, and ended in 1911 with the passage of the Parliament Act, which severely curtailed the powers of the House of Lords. When the question of Britain’s entry into the war was debated in the cabinet in the opening days of August 1914, Lloyd George sat on the fence until Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium provided him with a facesaving formula to join the ranks of the interventionists. Just as he had preached pacifi sm prior to 1914, he pursued his new course with vigor and determination. At the Exchequer he handled the fi nancial problems posed by the war, and when a coalition government was established in May 1915, Asquith appointed Lloyd George to head the new Ministry of Munitions. Here he applied the same energy to stimulate the production of munitions as well as push for the manufacture of bigger and more effi cient guns. In the summer of 1916, he became secretary for war, succeeding Horatio Herbert Kitchener, who drowned when the ship on which he was traveling to Russia struck a mine and sank. As the year wore on, Lloyd George grew increasingly disenchanted with Asquith’s lack of drive, and on December 1, with the backing of the Conservatives, he proposed that a small committee should be created to run the war with himself in charge. The king asked Bonar Law, the Conservative leader, to form a government, but he declined. Lloyd George was left as the logical alternative, and, when invited to serve as prime minister, he willingly accepted the challenge. He formed a coalition made up Conservatives and Liberals. His intrigue against Asquith split the Liberal Party between a faction loyal to him and another loyal to the former prime minister. The breach became permanent and fi nished the Liberal Party as a major political force. Lloyd George made institutional changes at the outset, creating new ministries and substituting a small war 220 Lloyd George, David cabinet, whose members were free from departmental responsibilities, for the unwieldy body that had hitherto conducted affairs. The prime minister’s central concern was to change the direction of the war. Instead of concentrating on the western front, Lloyd George favored attacking Germany’s allies, where progress was expected to be easier and the cost substantially less. As an amateur strategist, he never understood that the war could only be won by defeating the German army. Even if Douglas Haig had employed more imaginative tactics early on, the price of victory would have been tragically high. In the winter of 1917–18, Lloyd George tried his best to thwart Commander in Chief Haig’s plans for an offensive by denying him the troops that he had requested. It was a misguided action that almost spelled defeat for the Allies when the Germans attacked the British sector in force in the spring of 1918. The crisis led to the establishment of a unifi ed Allied command under General Foch, in which military effectiveness was improved, and by May the situation had stabilized. Haig’s series of victories in the summer and fall were instrumental in inducing the German government to ask for an armistice, but it was Lloyd George who represented himself as “the man who won the war.” In truth, his legacy does not rest on his management of the war, where he did more harm than good. It was on the home front that he left his mark: safeguarding shipping and maintaining food supply, increasing war production, mobilizing manpower, and providing an unfl agging display of optimism and resolve when things looked bleak. His popularity at an all-time high, Lloyd George, popularly known as the “fi ghting Welshman,” won an easy electoral victory in December 1918, which allowed him to continue the coalition. He played a leading part at the Paris Peace Conference, steering a middle course between Woodrow Wilson’s idealism and Georges Clemenceau’s demands. It is to his credit that the fi nal terms were not as severe on Germany as they would have been. His failure to rebuild the economy; a personal scandal in which he traded peerages and other honors for campaign contributions; the granting of independence to Ireland, which cost him Conservative support; and a reckless foreign policy that almost led to an unnecessary war with Turkey spelled his downfall in October 1922. He never regained power and died in March 1945 at the age of 82. See also World War I. Further reading: Bentley, Gilbert. David Lloyd George. 2 vols. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1987; Grigg, John. Lloyd George from Peace to War, 1912–1916. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985; Grigg, John. Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918. London: Allen Lane, 2002. George H. Cassar Locarno agreements (1925) The Pact of Locarno, negotiated on October 16, 1925, symbolized the atmosphere of goodwill between erstwhile enemies who had fought a global war 11 years before. The delegates from Germany, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, Poland, and Czechoslovakia met in the city of Locarno, Switzerland. The preceding months had eased the tension in western Europe. In November 1924 the French had ended the Ruhr occupation. The fi nancial condition of France was not good, and occupation of the Ruhr had become costly. The attitude of France changed after the coming of a new government with foreign minister Aristide Briand (1862–1932). Briand had softened his earlier stand and had become a “pilgrim for peace.” Gustav Stresemann (1879–1929), the foreign minister of the Weimar Republic, was in favor of reconciliation with France. In January 1925, Stresemann proposed a Rhineland Pact, which would guarantee the Franco- German border. The German acceptance of a demilitarized Rhineland guaranteed the western frontier of France as well as Germany’s acceptance of a part of the peace dictated at Versailles. Great Britain was interested in a general peace in Europe for the sake of its commercial and fi nancial interests. The United States had been persuaded by Great Britain to overhaul reparations, and the consequent Dawes Plan gradually stabilized the German economy. The Locarno Conference began on October 5, 1925. The German delegation was headed by Hans Luther (1879–1962), the chancellor, but most of the work was done by Stresemann. The British foreign secretary, Austen Chamberlain (1863–1937), played an important part in the deliberations at Locarno. Briand was the delegate from France. Emile Vandervelde (1866–1938), Vittorio Scialoja (1856–1933), Eduard Beneš (1884–1948), and Alexander Skrynski (1882–1931) were delegates of Belgium, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, respectively. The conference continued for 11 days. The diplomats patiently discussed the security of their frontiers in offi cial meetings and Locarno agreements (1925) 221 informal conversations. Seven treaties came out of the deliberations in an environment of cordiality and cooperation. The Locarno agreements signaled high hopes immediately. It seemed to erase the bitter memory of World War I. Paving the way for Germany’s admission to the League of Nations in September 1926, it gave Germany its due place on the committee of nations. There was rapprochement between France and Germany. In 1926 Chamberlain, Briand, and Stresemann were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It was perceived in 1925 that the Locarno Pact would bring peace in Europe, and there would not be another world war. But beginning in the 1930s a series of events took place that ultimately led to another confl agration. Further reading: Bretton, Henry L. Stresemann and the Revision of Versailles, A Fight for Reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1954; Gilbert, Felix, and David Clay Large. The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present. 4th ed. London: Norton, 1991; Jacobson, Jon. Locarno Diplomacy: Germany and the West, 1925–1929. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972; Joll, James. Europe Since 1870: An International History. 4th ed. London: Penguin, 1990; Newman, William J. The Balance of Power in the Interwar Years, 1919–1939. New York: Random House, 1968; Roberts, J. M. Europe 1880–1945. London: Longmans, 1967. Patit Paban Mishra Long, Huey (1893–1935) U.S. politician Both populist and demagogue, Huey Long, nicknamed “Kingfi sh,” controlled his state of Louisiana as governor and U.S. senator and founded a political dynasty. During the Great Depression Long’s popular “Share Our Wealth” scheme made him a credible challenger to President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). That possibility abruptly ended in 1935 with Long’s assassination. Long was born in rural northern Louisiana. Although his family was comfortable, as a lawyer he specialized in representing underdogs fi ghting powerful organizations. Elected to Louisiana’s Public Service Commission, he took on Standard Oil and telephone and railway companies. After an unsuccessful 1923 campaign for governor, Long won in 1927 using the slogan “Every Man a King, But No One Wears a Crown.” Long ruthlessly consolidated power through patronage, threats, and guile, creating a powerful political machine. He also gained popular support with initiatives to improve Louisiana’s wretched schools, expand its inadequate highway system, fi nance hospitals, and improve Louisiana State University. Unlike most southern leaders of his era, Long rarely used race-baiting tactics, although most Louisiana blacks remained poor and disenfranchised. Usually surrounded by bodyguards, the fl amboyant “Kingfi sh” used radio and sound trucks to bring voters his message unmediated by a mostly hostile press. Surviving impeachment in 1929 and term-limited by the state constitution, Long aspired to the Senate. But he declined to relinquish his grip on Louisiana, where he and his machine were collecting millions in kickbacks from those beholden to him for jobs or favorable legislation. Long decisively won his Senate seat in 1930, staying in Baton Rouge until an obedient ally assumed the governorship. Loud, even buffoonish, in his clothing and manner, Long was fodder for a fascinated national press and soon attracted a host of enemies. In 1932, at fi rst grudgingly, he supported Roosevelt’s candidacy, playing a key convention role to assure FDR’s nomination. The “honeymoon” between Long and the new president was soon over. Long sharply criticized FDR’s emergency bank holiday of March 1933 and opposed other key New Deal legislation. By late 1933 FDR had written Long off, cutting off his patronage opportunities and ordering federal offi cials to investigate his fi nances. Long focused on his “Share Our Wealth” plan, developing support across the nation for his proposal to limit how much wealth rich Americans could accumulate. The surplus, Long argued, would guarantee ordinary Americans a minimum annual income. Meanwhile, Long regularly used Senate fi libusters to annoy the Democratic leadership and promote his political agenda. In June 1935 Long spoke for almost 16 hours—the longest fi libuster to that time. That September Long returned to Baton Rouge, where he was still effectively governor. Leaving the House chamber on the evening of September 8, Long was shot by physician Carl Austin Weiss, son-in-law of a powerful judge who was Long’s bitter enemy. Incompetently treated, the “Kingfi sh” died two days later. A hundred thousand mourners attended the funeral on the capitol grounds where he was buried. Rose McConnell Long completed her husband’s Senate term. His brother Earl became a controversial Louisiana governor. His brother George and cousins Gillis and Speedy Long served in the U.S. House. Russell Long, Huey’s son, won a Senate seat in 1948, rising to chairman- 222 Long, Huey ship of the Finance Committee before retiring in 1987. Years later Long was still popular despite ample proof of corrupt and despotic practices. Robert Penn Warren’s best-selling 1946 novel, All the King’s Men, a thinly veiled Long portrait, spawned several movie versions. A statue of Long stands in the U.S. Capitol’s Statuary Hall. Further reading: Brinkley, Alan. Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression. New York: Knopf, 1982; White, Richard D. Kingfi sh: The Reign of Huey P. Long. New York: Random House, 2006. Marsha E. Ackermann Long March By late summer of 1934, the fi fth encirclement campaign, led by Chiang Kai-shek, had convincingly defeated the Chinese Communist Soviet and reduced it to a six-county area in Jiangxi (Kiangsi) Province. On October 15 the Communist government abandoned its capital, Ruijin (Juichin), with 85,000 soldiers, 15,000 party and government offi cials, and 35 women (wives of the high offi cials). They began the Long March, which would last for one year and cover about 6,000 miles (called the 25,000 li Long March in Chinese). The Communists were able to break out of the eastern sector of the Nationalist encirclement because it was guarded by army units under dissident generals whom Chiang did not control and whose leaders feared that the elimination of the Communists would hurt them. The fl eeing Communists were allowed to escape through a narrow corridor on the border of Guangdong (Kwangtung) and Guangxi (Kwangsi) (ruled by Nationalist generals who were opponents of Chiang) and entered Guizhou (Kueichow). Guizhou province, the domain of a corrupt warlord who grew rich from opium, was unable to prevent the Communist incursion. In January 1935 the communists held a conference at Zungyi (Tsungyi) in Guizhou where Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) and his allies Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai), and Zhu De (Chu Teh) emerged victorious, blaming the previous defeats on their opponents in the party. They then decided to head for northern Sha’anxi (Shensi) Province, where a Communist base already existed. Chased out of Guizhou by Chiang’s pursuing forces, the Communists headed for Yunnan, Sichuan (Szechuan), Sikang, and Gansu (Kansu) Provinces and were evicted from each in succession. Mao and 8,000 survivors reached northern Sha’anxi in October 1935; others who arrived later boosted the total to 30,000. They established themselves in Yanan (Yenan), which would remain their headquarters until 1949. The Long March was an epic of survival for the Chinese Communists: They survived terrible terrain and their pursuers. Although severely reduced in numbers, the leadership emerged intact. Mao became the clear leader of both the party and the military after the Zunyi Conference and would continue to dominate both until his death in 1975. Although Chiang Kaishek could not eliminate the Communists the encirclement campaigns and the Long March also clearly strengthened both Chiang and the central government of the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang). Ending the Chinese Communist rebellion in Jiangxi consolidated government power in southeastern China. Importantly, the inability of the autonomous warlords in Guizhou, Yunnan, Sichuan, Sikang, Gansu, and Sha’anxi Provinces to prevent the Communists from invading their domains led to central government troops entering these areas. After expelling the Communist invaders the government units remained and imposed many reforms and changes, which reduced the warlords to semiobedience to the national government. This was crucial for China’s survival when Japan invaded in 1937 and seized the coastal regions, enabling the Chinese government to continue resisting Japan for eight years from its new base in Sichuan and the other provinces it had gained control of as a result of the Long March. See also anti-Communist encirclement campaigns in China (1930–1934). Further reading: Liu, F. F. A Military History of Modern China, 1924–1949. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956; Salisbury, Harrison. The Long March: The Untold Story. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986; Wilson, Dick. The Long March. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1971. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Lugard, Frederick, baron of Abinger (1858–1945) British soldier Baron Lugard directed the conquest and administration of Nigeria as well as serving as a soldier elsewhere in British West Africa and as a governor in Hong Kong. His military career indicates the opportunities available to aspiring young offi cers who served the British Empire at its height. As an administrator, he theorized about the Lugard, Frederick, baron of Abinger 223 responsibilities of the British to themselves and to the inhabitants of the conquered territories. Born in Madras (Chennai) in British-controlled India to an Anglican minister, Lugard went to England early in his childhood. He received a solid education as a youth before entering the British Royal Military College at Sandhurst. Upon graduating he joined the army in 1878. He served in the Afghan War (1879–80), the British campaign in the Sudan (1884–85), and Burma (1886–87). He returned to Africa in 1888, where he was wounded in combat against Arab slave traders in Nyasaland. In the service of the Imperial British East Africa Company, Lugard led a team of explorers in the region of the Sabaki River before heading to Uganda in 1890. After ensuring British control of the area and ending unrest, he earned the title of military administrator of Uganda. While in that capacity, he continued his explorations of Africa. He resigned his position in May 1892 and returned to London, where he convinced the government of Prime Minister Gladstone to remain in Uganda. When Lugard returned to Africa in 1894, he worked for the Royal Niger Company. He pursued negotiations with various kings and chiefs so as to gain recognition of the company’s power in the region and, by extension, that of the British over other European rivals. While conducting an expedition to Lake Ngami in 1897 for the British West Charterland Company, Lugard was recalled by the British government so that he could organize a force of native Africans to defend British interests against the French in Lagos and Nigeria. His West African Frontier Force remained under Lugard’s command until December 1899. From 1900 until 1906, Lugard served as high commissioner of the protectorate of Northern Nigeria. Various local potentates, such as the sultan of Sukoto, refused to accept the provisions of treaties that they had signed. In 1903 Lugard triumphed over this opposition through a combination of diplomacy and military force. Before he left in 1906, Lugard had secured British control over all of Nigeria, though the military still confronted uprisings. His efforts also resulted in an improvement in British commerce; newly laid rail lines carried tin, peanuts, and cotton to the coast. Lugard favored indirect rule; by defeating indigenous rulers, he could control their peoples on behalf of the British. He accepted emirs who no longer traded slaves, acknowledged British authority, and introduced the measures that the British desired. These emirs retained their titles but took their orders from district offi cers; emirs could lose their positions if the British high commissioner found them uncooperative. Thus, the British could reduce the number of colonial offi cers needed to supervise the territory. Lugard preserved Muslim control over education and medicine in Northern Nigeria, while Christian missionaries provided social services in the south. This resulted in an inequality between the two protectorates as conditions in the south improved. Lugard spent the next few years in Hong Kong, where he held the position of governor until March 1912. He schemed to gain perpetual control over the rented New Territories, perhaps opening the way for permanent British control of Hong Kong, but his plans did not come to fruition. He also created the basis for the University of Hong Kong in 1911. He returned to Nigeria as governor in 1912, when he focused on ending the existing system of two protectorates in favor of a single colony. Many intellectuals and the press in Lagos opposed the plan, but the citizenry as a whole did not react. Lugard became governor-general of the colony of Nigeria from 1914 to 1919. As governor he attempted to prevent the importation or consumption of alcoholic beverages; he also tried to end slavery in the colony. Lugard published numerous works in which he traced the genesis of the British Empire in Africa and rationalized its rule over Africans. In The Rise of Our East African Empire (1893) he emphasized the economic motives that compelled the British to seek new markets and to secure sources of raw materials; he justifi ed the initial costs of conquest and anticipated the enormous fi nancial benefi ts to come. He further contended that the British had inherited the duty to expand the empire from their ancestors, who had shown considerable initiative in exploring and settling North America and Australia. For Lugard, Britain’s contributions to the welfare of Africans— the introduction of Christianity, the abolition of slavery, the spread of better medical treatments, and the improvement of education—would accompany its exploitation of Africa’s natural and human resources for its own economic benefi t. Lugard’s The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa (1922) presented a justifi cation for his application of indirect rule in Nigeria, as well as continuing to elaborate a rationale for British rule in Africa. He perceived black Africans as different from white Europeans and believed that they needed training before they could control their own affairs entirely. By coopting native elites, who spoke the local language and practiced the local customs, as administrators under 224 Lugard, Frederick, baron of Abinger a British supervisor, Lugard believed that the British could increase cooperation on the part of natives. After his decades of service to the British Empire, the aging Lugard settled down to live in England. He died in 1945, after having been appointed a member of the Privy Council in 1920 and being raised to the peerage in 1928. Further reading: Collins, Robert O. West African History. New York: M. Wiener Publications, 1990; Lugard, Baron Frederick. The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa. 5th ed. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1965; Perham, Margery Freda. Lugard. London: Collins, 1956. Melanie A. Bailey Lutz, Bertha (1894–1976) Brazilian scientist and feminist A zoologist and scientist, Bertha (or “Berta,” as her name is sometimes recorded) Maria Júlia Lutz was a prominent Brazilian feminist and campaigner for women’s rights in Brazil, as well as an important naturalist. Born on August 2, 1894, in São Paulo, her father was Adolfo Lutz (1855–1940), an important physician and epidemiologist, as well as a pioneer of tropical medicine. In 1881 he had moved to Brazil and settled in São Paulo, where he became a microbiologist specializing in the link between sanitation and epidemics, especially the plague, malaria, and yellow fever. Bertha Lutz was educated in São Paulo and then went to France, where she studied at the University of Paris (Sorbonne). She specialized in natural sciences, biology, and zoology and returned to Brazil to follow up on her interests in amphibians. Her major scientifi c discovery was a type of frog, to which she gave her name: Paratelmatobius lutzii (“Lutz Rapids Frog”). In 1919 Bertha Lutz started work at the Museu Nacional in Rio de Janeiro, then the capital of Brazil, which made her stand out at an early age, as public service jobs were offi cially supposed to be taken by men. In Paris Bertha Lutz had been hugely infl uenced by feminist ideas from France and Britain and had made contact with many French women suffragettes. When she returned to Brazil in 1918, she started agitating for the establishment of a feminist movement there. Only a year after her return, Lutz formed the Federacao Feminista Progresso Brasileira (“Brazilian Federation of Feminine Progress”). In 1922 she attended the Pan- American Conference on Women and gained much useful advice from Paulina Luisi and Carrie Chapman Catt. She was also elected vice president of the conference. After the conference Lutz returned to Brazil and spent much of her time working for the women’s movement. She had seen the advances made by women in Europe and the United States and wanted to get the same rights recognized in Brazil, especially the right of women to work, the abolition of child labor, equal pay for equal work for women, and the right to maternity leave. In 1932, owing to agitation by Lutz and others, women in Brazil were enfranchised and allowed to vote in elections, an act confi rmed by the Brazilian president Getúlio Vargas in amendments to the Brazilian constitution. Lutz made two unsuccessful attempts to be elected to the parliament on behalf of the Independent Electoral League. However, the death of one of the deputies, Candido Pereira, led to a casual vacancy, which was fi lled by Lutz, who became a deputy in 1934. In parliament she argued for women’s rights, three months’ maternity leave, and a reduction in the hours in the working day for both men and women. She also campaigned for young men to be able to get exemptions from national service. On October 6, 1940, Adolfo Lutz died, and his daughter not only ensured that his papers were sent to the National Archives of Brazil but also that she cataloged them meticulously, a task that took her the next 30 years. The papers are still regularly studied by many scholars from all around the world and have been hugely augmented by her own collection of papers and books, which she also donated to the archives. Lutz remained in charge of botany at the National Museum for much of the rest of her life. Her main work in English, British Naturalists in Brazil, was published in Rio de Janeiro in 1941. In 1948 Bertha Lutz was one of the four women who signed the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the others being Minerva Bernardino from the Dominican Republic, Virginia Gildersleeves from the United States, and Wu Yi-tang from the Republic of China. In the 1930s Lutz had written a number of technical papers published in Rio de Janeiro. In 1968 she completed three papers that were all published by the Texas Memorial Museum in Austin: “Geographic Variation in Brazilian Species of Hyla” (1968), “Taxonomy of the Neotropical Hylidae” (1968), and “New Brazilian Forms of Hyla” (1968, republished in Rio de Janeiro in 1973). She also wrote a substantial book, Brazilian Species of Hyla, written with Gualter Lutz, Bertha 225 A. Lutz and with a foreword by W. Frank Blair, which was also published in Austin, Texas, in 1973. In 1975 Lutz represented Brazil at the fi rst International Congress of Women at Mexico City, organized by the United Nations. Bertha Lutz died on September 16, 1976, in Rio de Janeiro. The Bertha Lutz Foundation was established in her honor; its symbol is a green butterfl y. See also Latin American feminism and women’s suffrage. Further reading: Benchimol, J. L., M. R. Sá, M. M. Andrade, and V. L. C. Gomes. “Bertha Lutz and the Memory of Adolpho Lutz.” História, Ciências, Saúde—Manguinhos (v. 10, part 1, Jan–April 2003); Lutz, Bertha. British Naturalists in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: Rodrigues, 1941. Justin Corfi eld Luxemburg, Rosa (1871–1919) socialist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, the Marxist revolutionary, activist, and author, was born to Jewish parents, Eduard and Line Luxemburg, in the Polish Russian town of Zamosac on March 5, 1871. Politics was her main interest from her early days at school. She arrived in Zurich in 1889 to study law and political economy at the university there. Luxemburg found herself among some of the leading revolutionaries of the period, including George Plekhanov (1857–1918) and Leo Jogiches (1867–1919). Her association with the latter became lifelong, and both men helped to establish a new party, the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland, which became the Socialist Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL). She was in Paris for a while, where she edited the party’s mouthpiece, Sprawa Robotnicza (Workers’ cause). She shifted to Berlin in 1898 and was associated with German socialism for the next 20 years. After getting her German citizenship, she settled in Berlin and became a member of the German Social Democratic Party. Luxemburg was the editor of the party organ Vorwarts (Forward) from 1905 onward. Luxemburg developed many of her concepts of revolution during this period. For her, the Moscow uprising of December 1905 was due to mass action. Revolution was a long-term phenomenon. Moreover, it could happen in a comparatively underdeveloped country like Russia. She began to write profusely, emphasizing mass strikes. The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had different revolutionary strategies, and Luxemburg believed in the former’s slogan of dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. However, she criticized the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution broke out. Luxemburg was imprisoned in Polish Russia in 1906 and later released. She continued with her political activities and was jailed for two months in June and July 1907. Luxemburg taught Marxism and economics at the Social Democratic Party School in Berlin between 1907 and 1914. World War I broke out on July 28, 1914, and the Bureau of the Socialist International met in Brussels the next day. Luxemburg, as a representative of the SDKPiL, advocated for mass demonstrations against the war. But SPD members voted in favor of the Reichstag’s declaration of war on August 4. In September Luxemburg, along with her colleague Karl Liebknecht (1871–1919) and others, formed the International Group from her fl at and decided to oppose the war. The group was converted to the Spartakusbund on January 1, 1916. Luxemburg was imprisoned many times during the war. She was released on November 8, 1919, from prison and went on to establish the German Communist Party (KPD) with the help of Liebknecht and socialist groups. Luxemburg organized the Spartakusbund uprising in January 1919 in Berlin but was captured along with Liebknecht. Both were killed on January 15. Luxemburg’s contributions to socialist theory and practice were immense. She was the most vocal spokesperson of the German labor movement. Luxemburg was not an armchair revolutionary like many of the Marxists but believed in action. She ultimately became a martyr for her beliefs, which never wavered from a strong basis of humanitarianism. Further reading: Bronner, Stephen Eric. Rosa Luxemburg: A Revolutionary for Our Times. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997; Dunayevskaya, Raya. Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, and Marx’s Philosophy of Revolution. Atlantic Islands-Sussex: Humanities Press/Harvester Press, 1981. Patit Paban Mishra Lyautey, Louis-Hubert (1854–1934) French colonial offi cial Louis-Hubert Gonzalve Lyautey was born in Nancy, France, on November 17, 1854. He was brought up 226 Luxemburg, Rosa in the aristocratic and intellectual society of Nancy as well as in the simplicity of country life. When Lyautey was only 18 months old he fell from a balcony of the family house, which resulted in a spinal injury. Until the age of six he endured a long period of enforced inactivity, passing the time by reading. In his teens he attended several schools, and at age 18 in 1873 he entered the French military academy, Saint-Cyr. In 1876 he enrolled in the military staff school and joined a cavalry regiment that was posted in Orleansville, Algeria. For the next two years Lyautey learned about Islam, North Africa, and colonial administration; he also began studying Arabic. Lyautey was promoted to the rank of captain in 1882 and was then ordered to join the IV regiment of the Chasseurs Legers at Epinal. When Lyautey was about 33 he published an article on military reforms that ultimately changed his career. He was considered one of those rare men who enjoyed both the sword and the pen. As a reprimand for his article, Lyautey was transferred to Indochina; however, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise. He arrived in Saigon in 1894 and met with Colonel Joseph Gallieni, who became his inspiration; Gallieni also promoted him to chief of staff. While under Gallieni, Lyautey learned a core lesson in colonization, namely, not to offend local traditions nor to change customs, and to use the elite class to the benefi t of the empire. Lyautey also learned tactics involving taking, securing, administering, and developing areas that were in enemy hands or subject to enemy attack. His principles concentrated on the well-being of the indigenous population, providing them with security in everyday life and administering their affairs with understanding, respect, and generosity. In 1897 Lyautey followed Gallieni to Madagascar, where he was promoted to lieutenant colonel and had the opportunity to construct a city how he saw fi t. By 1900 he was promoted to full colonel, and by 1903 he returned to Algeria as brigadier general. After the French took several cities in Morocco in an attempt to quell resistance to their occupation in neighboring Algeria, the Treaty of Fez, establishing a French protectorate over Morocco, was signed on March 30, 1912. Lyautey was then appointed the fi rst resident general of Morocco. One of Lyautey’s greatest qualities was his ability to adapt to new situations, and he did not adopt a specifi c or rigid formula in his administration of Morocco. He had qualities that appealed to Moroccans, Berbers, and Arabs alike, as he was a man of decision, integrity, and justice. In contrast to many of his peers, Lyautey did not believe it was the mission of Europeans to force their civilization and religion on the peoples of colonized countries. He believed it was important that the French understand Islam and the values of the Muslim world. He also believed that a mass migration of European colonists into Morocco would cause problems (as it had in Algeria) but did not object if the colons were willing to contribute to the country. As resident general, Lyautey maintained local customs and architecture and established so-called fl ying columns of soldiers to move quickly from one location to another in order to put down any local rebellions. The establishment of local health clinics in remote areas helped to encourage Moroccan support of the French administration. Lyautey also modernized and enlarged ports, especially in Casablanca, and supported economic development projects in mining and trade. With the outbreak of World War I, he managed to control Morocco with very few troops. In 1916, in the midst of World War I, Lyautey was offered the post of minister of war. After some reluctance he accepted the post but soon clashed with other high-ranking military offi cers. He opposed Commander in Chief Robert Nivelle’s plan for a new offensive against the Germans, but the plan was implemented over Lyautey’s objections. Just as Lyautey had foreseen, the offensive failed and resulted in massive numbers of French casualties. Furious, Lyautey tendered his resignation and was asked to return to Morocco to resume his old post as resident general, which he happily accepted. After the war in 1921, Lyautey was promoted to the nation’s highest military rank of marshal. He was 66 years old. Lyautey was plagued by liver attacks that affected him for years that would force him to stay in bed for several weeks and for which he had to endure several operations. During the 1920s, plagued with ill health, Lyautey attempted to resign from the residency, but he was constantly persuaded to remain in Morocco. During the early 1920s the successes of the Rif rebellion under Abd el Krim against the Spanish enclaves in the north of Morocco threatened French rule in the rest of the nation. By 1925 Lyautey was reluctantly engulfed in military operations against Abd el Krim and his army. In the midst of the struggle, Lyautey was removed from the military command of Morocco, and Marshal Philippe Petain, with whom he had previously clashed, replaced him. On September 24, 1925, the colonial veteran, now 70 years old, asked to be relieved of the supreme command in Morocco. His resignation was accepted, and Lyautey, Louis-Hubert 227 in October Lyautey left Morocco for France. As he left Rabat, a large crowd gathered to see him off. To the surprise of many, it was the British, not the French, who honored Lyautey with a naval escort of two destroyers through the Strait of Gibraltar. Lyautey spent most of his remaining years at Thorey, in his beloved Lorraine, preparing a few volumes of letters for publication. Some of the developments in Morocco that Lyautey can be credited with are construction of roads, cities, hospitals, schools, dispensaries, and railways. Hubert Lyautey died in 1934, and his ashes were conveyed by a French naval squadron, accompanied by 14 ships of the British Second Battle Cruiser Squadron, to his mausoleum in Rabat, Morocco. Further reading: Bidwell, Robin. Morocco Under Colonial Rule: French Administration of Tribal Areas, 1912–1956. London: Frank Cass, 1973; Scham, Alan. Lyautey in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Brian M. Eichstadt Lytton Commission and report On the night of September 18, 1931, the Japanese Kwantung Army stationed in Manchuria, China’s northeastern provinces, staged a minor bomb explosion on the tracks of the South Manchurian Railway outside Mukden, the administrative capital of Manchuria. Claiming that it was Chinese sabotage, the Japanese military swung into action, simultaneously attacking over a dozen Chinese cities in the region. Japanese units from its colony Korea invaded to broaden the attack. This was known as the Manchurian incident, or Mukden incident. The Chinese army was no match for superior Japanese forces. Therefore, China decided not to resist militarily and appealed to the League of Nations for support. It also appealed to the United States as signatory of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and the Washington Treaty of 1922. International support for China was expectedly lukewarm. However, the league assembly passed two resolutions, on September 30 and October 24, enjoining Japan to withdraw its forces, which the Japanese government promised to honor, but they had no effect on its military. On December 10 the league decided to dispatch a commission of investigation under British diplomat Lord Lytton, which spent six weeks in Manchuria plus some time in Japan and China. Japan conquered Manchuria in fi ve months, then established a puppet state called Manchukuo (state of the Manchus) on March 9, 1932. Next Colonel Doihara Kenji, intelligence chief of the Kwantung Army, enticed the last Qing (Ch’ing) emperor, Pu-i (P’u-yi), to Manchuria, installing him as chief executive (later as “emperor”) in a regime totally controlled by the Japanese. The Lytton Report, submitted to the league on October 1, 1932, refuted Japan’s claim that Manchukuo had local support, condemned Japan for aggression, and recommended the restoration of Manchuria to Chinese sovereignty. It also recommended the maintenance of the Open Door policy in Manchuria and special consideration for Japanese and Soviet commercial interests in the region. China signaled total acceptance of the report’s recommendations, as did the league assembly on February 14, 1933, with one dissenting vote—Japan’s. On March 27 Japan announced its resignation from the league. The failure of the League of Nations to halt Japanese aggression against China in the Manchurian incident signaled its impotence and doomed the international organization. The United States had on January 7, 1932, announced its Non-Recognition Doctrine (or Stimson Doctrine after Secretary of State Henry Stimson), stating that it would not recognize any situation created as a result of war in violation of the Kellogg- Briand Pact. Japanese militarists, encouraged by their success, would ignore both the league and the United States to pursue aggression. Further reading: League of Nations. Report of the (Lytton) Commission of Enquiry, 1932; Ogata, Sadako N. Defi ance in Manchuria: The Making of Japanese Foreign Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964; Smith, Sara R. The Manchurian Crisis, 1931–1932. New York: Greenwood Press Reprint, 1970. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Latin American culture Latin American culture is as diverse as its people. The region is vast: 8 million square miles of land organized into 20 countries, spread across South and Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Centuries of colonization created a rich ethnic mix, combining indigenous peoples with settlers from Europe and slaves from Africa, along with smaller populations of imported workers from Asia and the Middle East. What is now seen as the common culture of the region is the result of generations of adaptation and change. The traditional music of early indigenous civilizations was mostly lost during the first violent decades of colonization. Early Spanish adventurers noted that the music of Mesoamericans was exclusively for religious ceremony, not for entertainment. They played wind instruments, such as wooden panpipes and a clay flute called the tlapitzalli, or percussion instruments. The Spanish brought with them stringed instruments and a mature musical style derived from their own multiethnic background. Later, African slaves added their unique vocal rhythms and their instruments— including the marimba, the clave, conga drums, and maracas. Together, these elements were fused into a variety of new and different musical and vocal styles that came to worldwide acclaim in the 20th century. Music and dance grew together; most popular dance styles carry the same name as their musical styles. Latin dance tends to be highly physical, with steps and patterns drawn from different ethnic and cultural styles. The tango, for example, developed in the port cities of Argentina in the early 20th century, first as a music form blending several ethnic styles, including the Argentine and Uruguayan milonga, the Cuban habanera, the Slavic polka and mazurka, Italian street music, the Spanish contredanse and flamenco, and African-Uruguary an candombe. Originally the music of the underclass, the tango became popular in Europe and America in the 1920s, spurred by the Italian-born film star Rudolph Valentino, who had been an exhibition dancer specializing in the tango before he became the first sex symbol of the movies. It was the first in a long line of Latin dance styles to gain popularity both inside and outside their native lands. Other forms of Latin music and dance include the samba, the rumba, the cha-cha, the paso doble, the mambo, salsa, and merengue, among many others. From the beginning of the colonial period to the 19th century, Latin American painting was dominated by European styles. Early Latin art was also dominated by Catholic iconography. Local artists learned the techniques of Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, and Flemish masters, frequently interlacing these styles with the themes and traditions of their precolonial world. With the advent of independence in the early years of the 19th century, Latin American art began to move away from the baroque towards a more simple, neoclassical style, strongly influenced by current French trends. As nations began to build their own identities, artists were on hand to memorialize revolutionary leaders and pivotal events. Spanish and colonial themes were still present, but when it came time to set up their L universities and art institutes, it was French institutions that provided the model. Latin art remained focused on portraiture, landscape and decorative art until the 1920s, missing out almost entirely on the Impressionist movement and its offshoots. Muralism was the first major art movement to bring Latin American artists world acclaim. The movement arose in Mexico in the 1920s, when a group of established artists began using public spaces for huge paintings that usually focused on themes of social justice and equality. Through their work, such artists as Diego Rivera, José Clemente, and David Alfaro Siqueiros became active participants in shaping the political and social movements of the time. Murals were public art, meant to challenge and inspire all citizens. Muralism quickly spread outside of Mexico, inspiring artists from the United States to the Chile. By 1945 many Latin artists were turning away from nationalistic themes and toward the international avantgarde and modernist movements. In recent decades, artists have focused on the relationship between the modern era and the distant past as well as the national and the international, and mix a variety of media, often drawing from the folk art traditions of indigenous peoples. Latin American literature began with the conquistadors and missionaries of the 16th century and was dominated by Spanish and Portuguese styles and techniques for generations. Early Latin American writers benefited from the literary movements in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, and elements of French classicism were present by the early 1700s. Mexico City, Lima, Quito, Bogotá, Caracas, and Buenos Aires grew into literary centers on a par with European salons. With independence in the early 1800s most Latin American writers turned to nation-building as they joined the effort to create a national identity out of the ashes of colonialism. They also had a new form to play with: fiction, a genre long forbidden by the Spanish crown. The first Latin American novel was published in 1816. Politics and literature were closely intertwined throughout the 19th century, with new works not only by essayists and historians but also poets, playwrights, and novelists. Romanticism also struck a deep chord in Latin American art and literature during the period. Contemporary Latin American literature runs the gamut from cosmopolitan intellectualism to magical realism drawn from traditions of the rural past. Since the 1960s it has taken a prominent place in the international literary world. Poets Gabriela Mistral, Pablo Neruda, and Octavio Paz were awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1945, 1971, and 1990, respectively; Miguel Angel Asturias took the Nobel Prize in literature in 1967, and Gabriel García Márquez won in 1982. Cinema came to Latin America in the early years of the 20th century, but it took many years for it to spread evenly across the region. Only Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil had the kind of large, stable economies necessary to launch a film industry. Even in these countries, early directors were marginalized by European and American studios that dominated the film distribution systems and monopolized Latin markets. This did not change until the Great Depression and World War II, when financial and political concerns slowed down the flow of foreign films. However, by the mid-1950s, the industry had drifted back toward the prewar status quo. Latin American film came into its own in the 1960s– 70s, as native-born directors tapped into the new experimental film techniques coming out of Europe and the social and political movements sweeping across their countries to create a unique cinematic voice. The last 25 years have seen an expansion and maturation of Latin American cinema. As in the United States, the industry is constantly trying to find a balance between popular entertainment and more artistic ventures. Further reading: King, John. The Cambridge Companion to Modern Latin American Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; ———. Magical Reels. London: Verso, 2000; Sullivan, Edward. Latin American Art in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Phaidon, 2000. Heather K. Michon Latin American politics On a December day in 1956 a small band of armed men pushed off from the shores of eastern Mexico with their eyes on Cuba. Fidel Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara were among this group of revolutionaries, and they dreamt of a new Cuba free from social classes, capitalism, and American imperialism. After two years of guerrilla warfare, Castro and his band succeeded in overthrowing the Cuban government and seized power. Almost immediately their new vision of a socially just society unfolded as the new regime expropriated foreign holdings, transferred industries to state ownership, and “volunteered” Cuban citizens to work on state-run farms. This new vision of Cuba stemmed from the growing tide of Latin American nationalists turning toward Marxist theories in the decades after World War II. This 258 Latin American politics brand of Marxism centered on erasing centuries of inequity and poverty with far-reaching change aimed at dismantling capitalism and promoting social justice for all. The struggle between rich and poor dominated the rhetoric of Latin American Marxism, but with a unique spin that included U.S. multinational corporations among the rich. The Cuban revolution presented a new political paradigm to Latin America, one driven by Marxis ideology and armed revolution. It would influence Latin American politics for the rest of the 20th century. As the economic boom of World War II faded in the 1950s, international demand for Latin American exports—chiefly agricultural—waned. High machinery costs driven by postwar rebuilding in Europe held back industrialization and economic growth in Latin America. Economic hard times fused with the legacy of conquest and colonialism incited demands for sweeping, fundamental change. Some Latin Americans, including Fidel Castro, explored and then embraced Marxist ideology as a viable solution to ending the region’s poverty and economic dependency on industrialized nations. The cold war wore heavily on U.S.–Latin American relations, and the Cuban Revolution signaled an alarming turn to an American government in the throes of the “red scare.” Even more distressing to American policymakers was Castro’s involvement in the launching of the Organization of Latin American Solidarity (OLAS) in 1967 to encourage Marxist revolutions throughout the region. Leftist revolutionaries such as the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador, the Montoneros and People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP) in Argentina, and the Nicaraguan Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) are some of the armed Marxist guerrilla movements supported by Castro and OLAS. The United States sponsored a military alliance with anticommunist governments throughout Latin America. This national security doctrine increased the power of the military in Latin American societies as the United States encouraged military involvement in cracking down on Marxist guerrillas and their supporters. Soon some military leaders viewed civilian democratic governments as corrupt and a hindrance to social and economic change. These generals believed that the solution to Latin American problems lie in rapid social and economic development. During the 1970s almost every Latin American country succumbed to military rule. Many of these authoritarian governments looked to a free market economy as the means to change and seized upon low interest rates to borrow heavily to finance development. Any protests or cries for change, which increasingly came from urban residents-turned-guerrillas, were vehemently suppressed. In Argentina, scholars estimate that as many as 20,000 people “disappeared” at the hands of the military. The El Salvadoran military massacred peasants thought to be aiding leftist guerrillas, and in Guatemala, tens of thousands of indigenous people suspected of similar actions were killed by the military. By the 1980s government deficit spending coupled with a wavering global economy resulted in skyrocketing inflation and foreign debts. This economic crisis provoked criticism of the status quo from citizens and accusations that military leadership represented incompetent government. One by one, Latin America’s military regimes retreated to the barracks and handed leadership back to civilians. The 1990s saw many democratic, civilian leaders embracing neoliberalism, a philosophy centered on making Latin America competitive on the global market. State-owned industry was privatized, protective tariffs reduced, military budgets cut, foreign investment encouraged, and social programs and bureaucratic structure streamlined. More benefits of modernity came to Latin America, especially technology, yet most Latin Americans remained too poor to participate in free market capitalism as consumers. A few guerrilla movements continued to flourish, like Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru, violently working toward their goal of revolution. Latin American politics from the 1950s represents tumultuous decades, marred by the violence of “dirty wars” perpetuated by U.S.-backed military regimes. Marxist guerrillas throughout this time period sought revolutionary change of Latin American society. By the 2000s the move to the left in Latin American politics saw Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva winning the presidential elections in Brazil in December 2002, Evo Morales being elected as president of Bolivia in December 2005, an, in the following month, Michelle Bachelet won the second round of the presidential elections in Chile, becoming the first woman president of Chile and the first left-wing president since the overthrow of Salvador Allende. Moreover, the move by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, a socialist, toward a national referendum in 2007 to reelect him to the presidency despite constitutional limits, foretold a continuing leftwing power center in Latin America. See also El Salvador, revolution and civil war in (1970s–1990s); Guatemala, civil war in (1960– 1996); Nicaraguan revolution (1979–1990). Further reading: Bakewell, Peter. A History of Latin American c. 1450 to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004; Harris, Richard L., ed. Globalization and Development in Latin American politics 259 Latin America. Whitby, Canada: de Sitter Publications, 2005; Lewis, Paul H. Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America: Dictators, Despots, and Tyrants. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006; Wiarda, Howard J., and Harvey F. Kline, eds. A Concise Introduction to Latin American Politics and Development. Boulder. CO: Westview Press, 2007. Kathleen Legg Latin American social issues The recent history of Latin America is a story of profound political and economic change. During the second half of the 20th century, Latin America witnessed a transformation of society as the region struggled to find itself in the face of modernity and economic expansion. Crushing poverty facilitated alternative forms of religious faith that spoke to the condition of many Latin Americans. Migration from the countryside to the city and north to the United States spoke to a yearning for a better life. A thriving drug trade centered on a global market employed organized violence against national governments that tried to curb the trade. Centuries of oppression led to an organized and influential indigenous movement that mobilized to demand Indian rights and autonomy. Latin American countries plunged into the uncertainty of the oil industry with the hopes of increased revenues and instead found unpredictable results and mixed blessings. These factors offer a window into the dramatic social transformation of Latin America from 1950 to the present. Latin American spirituality underwent profound changes in recent history. Liberation theology spoke to a new turn in the role of the Catholic Church in Latin America, although it was not a phenomenon unique to the region. For centuries, the church stood as a conservative element in association with the state; the church legitimized authoritarian rule. However, beginning in the 1960s, many priests, nuns, and lay workers drew on their personal experiences working with the poor to question the responsibility of the church in the unequal distribution of wealth in Latin America. Some Latin American theologists began to speak of the role of the church and Christians in helping the poor, a mission clearly laid out in the Bible. Liberation theology is an understanding of the Christian faith developed out of the suffering and social injustice experienced by the poor. As such, it is a critique of society and the ideologies supporting the dominant hegemony, including the traditional role of the Catholic Church. It gave the poor a voice and created new forms of community-based activism. Liberation theology was a formidable force in Latin America for a few decades— especially in Central America, Brazil, and Chile. Liberation theory gained momentum in 1968 when a group of 130 Latin American bishops met in Medellín, Colombia to discuss the church and its relationship to the populace. The bishops promoted an empowering education program for illiterate rural peasants that affirmed the dignity and self worth of the students. This education was carried out in small community-based groups where people could gather together to read the Bible and discuss its relevance to their lives without a priest or church building. Engaging Catholicism without a priest represented a new idea. Rural priests often served thousands of parishioners and could only visit some communities once a year. Priests, nuns, and lay people used the Medellín conference as a springboard for a new approach to their work with the poor. Those Catholic personnel dedicated to the poor quickly learned through their charitable work that the condition of the lowest classes of Latin American society could only be relieved through sweeping structural changes. This would involve direct political action. Some base communities served as the vehicle for political action as participants experienced an awakening, or consciousness-raising about their devalued position in society. Many Christian-based communities served not only as sites of literacy education and Bible study but also places where a reinterpretation of traditional religion promoted a transformative perspective on the world. Some groups worked toward improvements in local basic services, such as healthcare and transportation. In spite of this, base communities represented a small fraction of Catholics, and by the 1980s, enthusiasm for liberation theology waned. Protestantism is a relatively new player in Catholic Latin America. Brazil is home to Latin America’s largest Protestant community with half of the region’s estimated 40 million Protestants, but Central America boasts the largest number of evangelicals in terms of the percentage of the population. European migration to the continent brought the traditional Protestant churches, such as German Lutheranism and British Anglicanism. Despite the influence of European immigrants, North American missionaries bear the responsibility for the tremendous growth in Protestantism in Latin America, especially evangelical forms like Pentecostalism. Sharing liberation theology’s sense of consciousness-raising, Pentecostalism allows participants a refuge from suffering and social injustice by providing a spiritual space in which believers can regain some feeling of control over their lives. 26 0 Latin American social issues Additionally, unlike Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism, Pentecostalism permitted anyone to become a spiritual leader, even the illiterate and poverty stricken. Women, in particular, have been attracted to evangelical churches due to their inclusive nature. Evangelicalism has taken hold throughout the wartorn countries of Central America, especially in rural areas. In Guatemala rural Mayan women, mostly widows, fill evangelical churches in search of a sense of community that has been lost. These churches provide a network of support that replaces destroyed kinship ties. Protestant churches offer a religious alternative and a message of hope to the underdogs of society. For women, the evangelical Protestant ban on drinking alcohol makes Protestant husbands an attractive marriage partner. In addition, the phenomenon associated with Pentecostalism in particular, such as speaking in tongues and faith healing, has given women positions of power within their religious communities. Despite North American origins, evangelical Protestantism in Latin America is a unique phenomenon. Its churches emphasize the notion of community and belonging more than its northern counterparts. In addition, in Latin America being an evangelical does not necessarily denote a right-wing conservative political identity as it tends to in North America. Latin America’s economic setbacks have not only influenced new religious movements but have also led to mass migrations of people. Latin Americans have moved from the countryside to the city and from Latin America to North America. Prior to the 1930s the majority of Latin America’s population resided in rural areas. The global economic depression of the 1930s dealt a hard blow to the Latin American export economy, and rural residents began to leave the countryside. This exodus peaked over a 30-year period from 1950 to 1980 and succeeded in transforming Latin America’s social structure from predominantly rural to overwhelmingly urban. By 1980 family-based farming was no longer viable as market-oriented modern agribusiness became the norm. Thousands streamed into Latin America’s major cities in search of industrial jobs and a better life. Women comprised a majority of the rural-urban migrants, as industrialization opened many jobs for female workers. Rapid urbanization quickly outpaced housing, basic services, and job markets. Rural residents arrived in the cities to find dirty, disease-ridden, and overcrowded shantytowns with spotty electrical power and water shortages. Ruralurban migration caused a labor surplus, which led to the rise of a vast informal sector of the economy consisting of street vendors, rubbish scavengers, and prostitutes. Latin Americans also migrated north to the United States for economic, political, and social reasons. Mexicans currently represent the greatest percentage of Latin Americans immigrating to the United States. They often have come looking for work, and many resided in the southwest long before it belonged to the United States. During the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Mexicans and Mexican Americans routinely crossed back and forth over the border, with little or no regulation. During the 1930s, the government supported the repatriation of Mexican workers to provide more jobs for Americans. However, with the onset of World War II, labor shortages fueled the Bracero Program, which allowed Mexican agricultural workers to come into the country on a temporary basis. The Bracero Program lasted until 1964. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 called for penalties for those hiring undocumented workers, but also granted amnesty to many undocumented immigrants already living in the United States. The Immigration Act of 1990 favored the legal immigration of family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. cuban immigrants Many Cuban immigrants came to the United States fleeing a repressive political regime. Cubans enjoyed a privileged status in relation to other Latin American immigrants due to the U.S. foreign policy on Cuba. As early as 1960 the U.S. government had created a special center for Cuban refugees, and their path to legal residence in the United States was easily cleared. These first waves of immigrants represented the Cuban elite and middle class and individuals and families with financial resources, specialized job training, and American connections. In 1980 Fidel Castro opened the door for Cubans to leave the island, and a deluge of mostly male semi- and unskilled workers flowed into south Florida. This migration overwhelmed U.S. authorities, and many of the refugees were placed in detention camps for months. Currently U.S. officials observe a quota on Cuban immigrants, but the Cuban-American community continues to thrive and grow. Central Americans also have migrated to the United States seeking refuge from wars and violence that have disrupted the economy and everyday life, especially in El Salvador and Guatemala. In the 1980s migrants from El Salvador left their homes due to civil war and political repression. Unlike Cubans fleeing political repression, many Salvadorans were denied permanent residency and deported. Churches in the U.S. southwest developed a “sanctuary movement” to protest U.S. treatment of these refugees, providing a safe haven for those fleeing Latin American social issues 26 1 violence. In the 1990s a small minority of Salvadoran immigrants brought violence to the United States in the form of street gangs. Many of these gang members were targeted by U.S. immigration officials in Los Angeles, California, and sent back to El Salvador. Not only are Latin Americans moving north, Latin America drugs are making the trip as well. One of the largest social problems facing Latin America is drug trafficking, especially in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. The drug trade embodies simple supply and demand economics. This multinational drug trade negatively affects U.S.– Latin American relations as many of the region’s leaders believe that the U.S. war on drugs focuses unfairly on the supply side of the equation. Unfortunately, in countries suffering from crushing poverty, drugs represent a viable economic option. The debt crisis of the 1980s and the collapse of prices for tin and coffee on the international market fueled the Latin American drug trade. In several Latin American countries, Peru and Bolivia in particular, the drug trade acted as an economic buffer, offering alternative sources of income when other options vanished. The drug trade creates an atmosphere of violence. Drug cartels breed corruption and threaten the integrity and stability of the state, democracy, security, public health, moral values, and international reputation. drug trade Poverty and unemployment in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia— along with the high prices Latin American cocaine fetched in the United States—fueled the drug trade and offered viable economic alternatives. Colombia and Bolivia saw a significant boost to its national economy from drug revenues, but violence and corruption went hand-inhand with the economic boom. In Peru, the world’s largest producer of coca leaves, the environmental destruction wrought by the drug trade is appalling. Large tracks of rain forest have been clear-cut for cultivation, and the pesticides and herbicides used for growing coca have leached into forest water systems. The involvement of guerrillas in the drug trade has further complicated the situation, and threats to the integrity of the state continue in these nations. Despite billions of U.S. dollars poured into curbing the Latin American drug trade, major traffickers have been affected very little. The drug trade has impacted Latin American indigenous groups in remote rural areas, as they are often caught in the crossfire between traffickers and the government. In Peru many have fled the countryside for shantytowns in the cities, hoping to escape the violence brought on by traffickers and guerrillas, especially the Shining Path. Such issues have led to an explosion of indigenous groups organizing for a better life. The sophistication and power of indigenous organizations forced many Latin American states to negotiate with Indian peoples and create new legislation that protected their rights. The traditional relationship between the state and its native peoples is changing, with indigenismo policies that strove for assimilation abandoned in favor of embracing multiculturalism and pluriethnicity. Despite claims of embracing multiculturalism, not all Latin American states have actually implemented policies aimed at improving the lives of indigenous peoples. One of the best-known indigenous movements occurred in 1994 in Chiapas, Mexico. Landless Maya formed the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) as an outlet for their struggle for rights and recognition in national life. The EZLN briefly occupied several towns in Chiapas. When negotiations with the Mexican state began, the first demands of the Zapatistas centered on Indian autonomy and rights. The EZLN did not advocate a separation from the Mexican nation-state, but rather called for the state to implement the tenets of the constitution of 1917 regarding indigenous peoples. The Zapatistas drew international attention to the plight of Mexico’s indigenous population and provided inspiration to other Indian groups in Latin America. OIL INDUSTRY The oil industry directly affects the quality of life for all Latin Americans; unpredictable oil prices have varying impacts on the economy as a whole. Latin America has a few significant oil-producing countries: Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. In fact, Mexico and Venezuela have become key suppliers to the United States. Latin America’s oil industry has undergone many transformations. From the 1930s to the 1970s, foreign owners controlled significant portions of the Latin American oil economy, with the exception of Mexico, which nationalized its oil industry in 1938. By the 1970s Latin America’s oil industry was mostly nationalized, as foreign investors looked to the oil fields of the Middle East instead. The Latin American oil industry has been subject to the volatile political, economic, and social history of Latin America, with varying degrees of success. While some nations expected their large oil reserves to clear the way for economic development, the region’s major oil-exporting economies experienced obstacles in transforming oil revenues into a continuous source of funding. High oil prices aided significant producers that were dependent on exports for revenue and foreign exchange, like Mexico, Venezuela, and Ecuador. For oil-importing countries, such as Brazil, Peru and Chile, the price of 262 Latin American social issues oil served as a vital factor in inflation, production costs, the trade balance, and currency strength. In the past 20 years, oil prices have been more precarious than any other export commodity. The impact of an unpredictable oil market fluctuates depending on a nation’s reliance on oil production and exports. The historical and current state of Latin America’s oil industry suggests that it is the management of oil resources, not oil wealth itself, that can create economic problems. Latin America’s tremendous economic growth and development after 1950 transformed the region but intensified the misery of many Latin Americans. Rapid growth and urbanization led to mass migrations of people trying to find a niche in a hostile environment. Industrial progress brought thousands of rural residents into Latin America’s major cities with the hope of a living wage, but failed to alleviate poverty. Devastating poverty fuels the drug trade, which for many peasants and indigenous people offers the only viable economic endeavor for survival. The oil industry, especially in Mexico and Venezuela, promised hope but has seemingly failed to materialize into concrete change for the better. Liberation theology and the growth of evangelical Protestantism speak to a suffering poor searching for a ray of light in a bleak world. The promises of prosperity that accompanied economic growth proved to be empty for many people in Latin America. Although Latin America experienced economic progress, true transformations of society and social justice continue to elude the region. Further Reading: Coerver, Don M., and Linda B. Hall, eds. Tangled Destinies: Latin America and the United States. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999; Garrard-Burnett, Virginia, and David Stoll, eds. Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993; Joyce, Elizabeth, and Carlos Malamud, eds. Latin America and the Multinational Drug Trade. London: Macmillan Press, 1998; Maybury-Lewis, David. The Politics of Ethnicity: Indigenous Peoples in Latin American States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002; Mattiace, Shannan L. To See With Two Eyes. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2003. Kathleen Legg Lebanese civil war The modern boundaries of Lebanon were drawn under the French Mandate, which replaced Ottoman rule after the latter’s defeat in World War I. Under Ottoman rule, Lebanon had been limited to the area of Mount Lebanon, which was inhabited by two major religious communities— Maronite Christians and Druze. With the conception of “greater Lebanon” in 1920, predominantly Sunni Muslim coastal cities such as Tripoli, Beirut, and Sidon, and the predominantly Shi’i Muslim south were annexed to Mount Lebanon, yet the 51 percent majority remained Maronite Christians. The Maronites and Sunnis made an agreement in 1943 in the National Pact, which distributed the presidency of the republic, the parliament, and the government posts according to religion in a confessional system that favored the Christians in a 6 to 5 ratio. In the 1970s, the demographics changed in Lebanon, and the Maronites made up around one-third of the population, with two-thirds of the population being Muslims. When the Muslims called for more constitutional power to reflect the population change, the Christians refused. To complicate matters, the influx of Palestinians into Lebanon following the events of Black September in Jordan in 1970 served to exacerbate Maronite fears of an Arab-Muslim takeover. The National Front, the umbrella organization representing left-wing organizations and Muslim groups, endorsed the Palestinian cause and used the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to pressure the Maronite-oriented right-wing groups. The confessional government receded into a state of paralysis that undermined public confidence. This resulted in the formation of militias on both sides: Christians aiming to keep the status quo and Muslims and leftists fighting for change. On April 13, 1975, the date marking the beginning of the Lebanese civil war, unidentified gunmen fired on a church in Ain El Rimmaneh, a Christian suburb of Beirut, killing four people, including two men from the Phalange militia, a Maronite armed group. The Phalange accused the Palestinians, and later that day, the Phalange massacred 26 Palestinians traveling on a bus in Ain El Rimmaneh. The incident sparked full-scale hostilities between the Lebanese Front militias and National Movement. Between April 1975 and October 1976, when the Arab summits in Riyadh and Cairo dispatched the Arab Deterrent Force, Lebanon broke down into its sectarian parts. As the Lebanese army disintegrated, Christian militias massacred Palestinian inhabitants of Debayeh, Karantina, and Tel El Zaatar, and the Palestinians massacred Christians in Damour. The Lebanese president Sleiman Franjieh then asked the Syrian army to intervene. In 1978, under the pretext of increased PLO attacks from Lebanon, the Israeli army invaded southern Lebanon but withdrew the same year, creating a security zone controlled by proxy through the Lebanese civil war 263 South Lebanon Army (SLA). Meanwhile, alarmed by the hostilities in southern Lebanon, the United Nations (un ) created the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. In 1982 Israel reinvaded Lebanon; this time its troops reached Beirut and laid siege to the city. Through international mediation, the PLO left Beirut, and the pro-Israeli Bashir Gemayel was elected president. After Gemayel’s assassination in September 1982, under the watch of the Israeli troops, Gemayel’s supporters entered the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and massacred around 1,500 Palestinian civilians. After the massacre, the American-French-Italian Multinational Force (MNF), which had overseen the PLO evacuation, returned to Beirut. In 1983, as the IDF unilaterally withdrew to southern Lebanon, French, U.S. military headquarters, and the U.S. embassy in Beirut were bombed. The first “reconciliation” conference held in Switzerland failed. Hostilities between the Lebanese factions escalated, and the MNF left Beirut. Lebanon descended into chaos as various groups battled for dominance, radical Shi’i groups kidnapped Western nationals, and the Shi’i Amal movement laid siege to the Palestinian refugee camps. In 1988 the term of Lebanese president Amin Gemayel (Bashir’s brother) expired without the parliament electing a new president. In East Beirut, Gemayel assigned the commander of the army, General Michel Aoun, as the head of an anti-Syrian caretaker military government. In West Beirut, Syria set up a rival government. General Aoun declared war on Syria and Syrian troops, with the help of their Lebanese allies, and laid siege to East Beirut. In November 1989 the Lebanese parliament met in Taif, Saudi Arabia, and agreed on a formula to end the war. General Aoun rejected the Taif Agreement and the election of President René Moawad and claimed the authority of the prime minister, issuing a decree dissolving the parliament. In November President Moawad was assassinated, and President Elias Hrawi was elected. Early in 1990 the Lebanese parliament approved the constitutional amendments that embodied the political reforms of the Taif Agreement. In 1991, the year that the fighting ended, the Lebanese government gained legitimacy and approval from most Lebanese; it then ordered the disarmament and dissolution of militias and the release of the Western hostages taken during the 1980s. The fragile peace continued to hold during the following decade. 264 Lebanese civil war Lebanon was the site of years of civil war and external invasions, creating turmoil in an already troubled part of the world. Above: U.S. Marines prepare to leave at the conclusion of a multinational peacekeeping operation in the mid-1980s. See also Arab-Israeli War (1982). Further reading: Fisk, Robert. Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon. New York: Atheneum, 1990; Harris, William W. Faces of Lebanon: Sects, Wars and Global Extensions. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996. Ramzi Abou Zeineddine Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) The dominant political party in Japan from 1955 to 1993 was the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). It began in 1955 with the merging of Shigeru Yoshida’s Liberal Party and Ichiro Hatoyama’s Japan Democratic Party, because both shared a common opposition to the Japan Socialist Party. However the roots of the LDP date to the late 19th–20th century. Two Japanese political figures, Itagaki Taisuke and Saigo Takamori, played roles in the emergence of the modern LDP. Japanese political development before the occupation by the United States after World War II can best be viewed in broad cycles. Modern Japanese history begins with the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Facing a continued challenge from the West to modernize and change their isolationist policies, Japanese feudal lords, samurai, and others overthrew the Tokugawa Shogunate that had ruled from 1603 to 1867. The result was a complete alteration of the Japanese system in order to compete with the West. Japan then changed many of its old political, economic, and social institutions to conform with Western-style examples. From the Meiji Restoration came a series of cycles in Japanese political history that would continue until after World War II. First came the Freedom and People’s Rights Era, with its associated demands for more liberalization, which lasted from 1878 to 1889. Japan then underwent a militarist period from 1894 to 1905 that was characterized by wars with both China and Russia. Afterward, a cycle of liberalization known as the Taisho Democracy dominated the politics from 1912 to 1915 and again from 1918 to 1930. An age of militarism, again marked by international aggression, dominated the politics of Japan from 1931 to 1945. The beginnings of the Liberal Democratic Party can be traced to the Freedom and People’s Rights Era. Itagaki Taisuke claimed a powerful role in late 19thcentury Japan. He used his position to advocate peace instead of rebellion in order for the Japanese people to gain a voice in government. In 1874 Itagaki and his supporters penned the Tosa Memorial, a criticism of the seemingly unchecked power of the oligarchy and a call for representative government. By 1878 Itagaki had become impatient at the lack of reform and moved to create the Aikokusha, the Society of Patriots, in order to achieve representative government. In 1877 the Satsuma rebellion pitted the samurai led by Saigo Takamori against the citizen-based Meiji army. The Meiji victory solidified its position over the samurai. By 1881 Itagaki founded the Jiyuto, the Liberal Party, which favored the adoption of French styles of political representation. At the same time, Okuma Shigenobu emerged as a voice in favor of the British model of representative government. Okuma founded the Rikken Kaishinto, the Constitutional Progressive Party, in 1882. The two opposition parties led to a pro-government party called the Rikken Teiseito, or the Imperial Rule Party, in 1882. A number of violent and nonviolent demonstrations among the political parties soon led to government suppression and restrictions on political activism. Restrictions on the political parties led to fighting within the parties as well as with others. The Jiyuto, which had fought against the Kaishinto, fell apart in 1884. Okuma also resigned his leadership of the Kaishinto party. A call for more democratic governance, through the movement for Freedom and People’s Rights, added to growing demands for a more politically liberal Japanese system of governance. By 1889 popular demand led to the enactment of the Meiji constitution. Modeled after that of Prussia, the constitution resulted in a limited democracy. A representative body, the Diet, of directly elected members came into being. Ultimately, the government was run by bureaucrats much like its Prussian example. By 1890 the call for more direct representation resulted in the first national election. Both the Jiyuto and Kaishinto reorganized for the elections and combined to win over half of the seats in the House of Representatives. The first two decades of the 20th century brought the transformation of the Freedom and People’s Rights into the Liberal Party and later the Seiyukai. The era of political parties, however, gave way to the militarist period of 1931 to 1945. After the war the modern Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) emerged as the result of a merger between the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party. The LDP reflected a broad coalition of those calling for military protection by the United States and the economic rebuilding of the war-torn infrastructure under a capitalist system. The first postwar government Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) 26 5 was LDP-created, and the party would dominate until the 1990s. Further reading: Beasley, W. G. The Modern History of Japan. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981; Richardson, Bradley M., and Scott C. Flanagan. Politics in Japan. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984; Tsurumi, Kazuko. Social Change and the Individual: Japan Before and After Defeat in WWII. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970; Ward, Robert E., ed. Political Development in Modern Japan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968. Matthew H. Wahlert Liberian civil wars (1989–1996 and 1999–2003) The small West African state of Liberia has suffered almost constant civil war since the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), led by Charles Taylor, launched an uprising against the Liberian government in December 1989. The civil war quickly became a chaotic conflict with seven distinct factions contesting control of the nation. All of the groups fought for possession of Liberia’s natural resources: iron ore, exotic timber, rubber, and especially diamonds. The resources were used to fund war efforts as the nation’s economy collapsed, and because it had little global strategic importance, aid from major world powers was not forthcoming. An attempt was made by the Nigerian-dominated Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) to mediate and end the violence between 1990 and 1992 through peacekeeping and helping to hold new elections. Charles Taylor’s forces attacked the interim government, derailing the process. A new coalition government was formed by Charles Taylor’s enemies in 1993 but fighting continued as the coalition tried to form a democratic government. In early 1996 Taylor’s forces attacked the capital, Monrovia, destroying much of the city in prolonged fighting. All sides then came together to negotiate and agreed on disarmament and demobilization of their forces. Elections were held in July 1997, and Charles Taylor won using the campaign slogan “He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him.” Many Liberians simply wanted the war to end and believed that Taylor would continue to fight if he was not elected. Peace returned to Liberia, but Taylor cracked down on his former enemies. A coalition of Taylor opponents formed the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) army in 1999. The LURD invaded Lofa County to gain control of the diamond fields. LURD forces pushed south from northern Liberia toward the capital and captured two-thirds of the country by 2003 before laying siege to Monrovia. During the course of the Liberian civil war, a rebel group in neighboring Sierra Leone, known as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and led by Foday Sankoh, was sponsored by Charles Taylor. Fighting lasted from 1991 to 2002. Taylor used the RUF as a way to destabilize Sierra Leone, which was serving as the base for the ECOMOG peacekeepers who were trying to stop Taylor from winning control of Liberia. The RUF began their terror campaign in 1991, brutally punishing all who were not part of the RUF. They were exceptionally harsh toward civilians whom they accused of supporting the Sierra Leone government. Mass murder, systematic rape, and widespread amputation of hands, arms, and feet were the tools that the RUF used to control the population. Hands were chopped off to prevent voting, which required a thumb for fingerprinting. To fill their ranks, the RUF also practiced widespread abduction of children. Boys starting as young as nine years old were forced to fight, often under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Girls were used as servants and sex slaves. Like Taylor in Liberia, the RUF targeted the resources of Sierra Leone to fund their war effort. During the course of the struggle against the RUF, several national governments existed, led by military juntas or civilians. Several attempts were made by ECOMOG at mediation, and talks were held to form coalition governments, but the RUF always broke agreements and returned to fighting. Between 2000 and 2002 the RUF was defeated by attacks from government forces, ECOMOG, and Guinean troops. In May 2002 elections were held, and the RUF won no seats in parliament. Over the next three years the fighting subsided and the peacekeepers left. During both of the conflicts, the United Nations (UN) was absent despite evidence of ethnic cleansing. In August 2003 President Charles Taylor resigned and fled to Nigeria. In the summer of 2006 Taylor was captured and sent to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. Foday Sankoh was arrested in 2000 after his soldiers fired on protesters. Foday Sankoh had stopped fighting after signing the Lome Peace Accord in 1999. He was held in UN custody and died from a stroke while awaiting trial for war crimes. The legacy of more than a decade of constant fighting has been continuing misery for the peoples of Liberia and Sierra Leone. Both countries have many thousands 266 Liberian civil wars (1989–1996 and 1999–2003) of amputees who are unable to care for themselves; education has broken down; a whole generation suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder; the economy is ruined; the infrastructure is in shambles; and both nations rank at the bottom of the Human Development Index according to the United Nations. Further reading: Adebajo, Adekeye. Liberia’s Civil War: Nigeria, ECOMOG, and Regional Security in West Africa. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002; Ellis, Stephen. The Mask of Anarchy: The Destruction of Liberia and the Religious Dimension of an African War. New York: NYU Press, 1999; Gberie, Lansana. A Dirty War in West Africa: The RUF and the Destruction of Sierra Leone. London: Hurst, 2005; Huband, Mark. The Liberian Civil War. Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 1998. Collin Boyd Libya Following the defeat of the Libyan forces led by Omar Mukhtar in the 1930s, Italy consolidated its imperial control over the three main provinces of Libya: Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan. During World War II Libya became a battleground between the Axis forces and the Allied forces of France and Great Britain. By 1942 the Italians had been defeated, the British occupied Tripolitania and Cyrenaica; and the French occupied Fezzan. In Tripolitania the British retained direct control, but in Cyrenaica they granted greater autonomy; the French administered Fezzan through direct military control. After the war a number of different solutions were offered regarding the future of the Libyan territories. Italy demanded the return of Libya to its jurisdiction. Other Western nations suggested a trusteeship, while some advocated independence. Egypt, Libya’s neighbor to the east, was interested in acquiring control over the territory. Competing Libyan political forces also had conflicting goals. Some wanted the continuation of Sayyid Idris’s Sanussi leadership, while a political society of young educated Libyans like Mukhtar pushed for unity and complete independence. When the powers failed to agree, the matter was turned over to the newly formed United Nations (UN). After protracted negotiations the UN General Assembly recommended in 1949 that Libya—comprising Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan—should constitute a unified state that should obtain independence no later than January 1, 1952. Thus for the first time in its history, the General Assembly acted as a world legislator with binding authority. In 1951 Libya became a unified nation under the monarchy of King Idris. At the time Libya was one of the poorest countries in the world, and Idris relied heavily on Western assistance. He also retained considerable executive power and drew support from tribal leaders, traditional politicians, and a few successful businessmen. This narrow power base alienated many, who grew increasingly disaffected with the old regime. Idris continued to rule Libya until he was overthrown in 1969 by Muammar Qaddafi. Further reading: First, Ruth. Libya: The Elusive Revolution. New York: Africana, 1975; Sabki, Hisham M. The United Nations and the Pacific Settlement of Disputes: A Case Study of Libya. Beirut: Dar El-Mashreq Publishers, 1970. Hisham M. Sabki Lin Biao (Lin Piao) (1908–1971) Chinese communist general Although his contributions to the development of modern Communist China are overshadowed by those of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, the leader of both the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the country, Lin Biao nevertheless played an important role. Lin Biao was born in Wuhan, China, in 1908. The son of a landowner, he joined the Socialist Youth League in 1926. Attending the Whampoa Military Academy he met another future communist leader, Zhou Enlai. After the collapse of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in China in 1911, much of China countryside was ruled by warlords. During the 1920s there was a push to reunify the country. Two of the main groups were the new CCP, formed in 1921, and the Kuomintang (KMT), the Nationalist Party. The emerging leader in the KMT was Chiang Kai-shek. Lin Biao managed to survive the purges, and, along with Mao and the remaining communists, escaped into China’s interior. He participated in the Long March; 30,000 survived out of 100,000 who had begun the trek. They included leader Mao, Liu Shaoqi, and Zhou Enlai. When the Japanese invaded China in 1937, Lin Biao utilized guerrilla tactics to fight the invaders behind enemy lines, something that gave the CCP patriotic prestige. At the end of World War II, war broke out again between the CCP and the KMT. The CCP created the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), in which Lin Biao served as a commander. On October 1, 1949, Mao proclaimed the creation of the People’s Republic Lin Biao 267 of China (PRC). Lin continued to play a major role in both the government and the military and commanded “volunteers” from China in the Korean War (1950– 53); he was promoted to the rank of marshal. In 1968 Mao embarked on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to attack his critics and regain control of the party. Mao set out to eliminate his competition. Lin Biao worked closely with Mao and fought against the faction led by Liu Shaoqi, who had been state chairman since 1999. Lin was also instrumental in assembling Mao’s writings into the Quotations of Chairman Mao, or the“Little Red Book,” which received nationwide distribution. Lin’s power rose when Red Guards, Mao’s young supporters, began to fight one another adding chaos that grew into anarchy. The minister of defense was called by Mao to meet the enemy to suppress the Red Crossein 1967. For this he was annointed vice chairman of the CCP and Mao’s successor at the 9th Party Congress in 1969. However, Mao became increasingly suspicious of him as the Lin’s power grew. Conversely Lin’s impatience to replace Mao culminated in a failed assassination attempt in 1971. Lin and his wife attempted to flee to the Soviet Union, but the plane that their air force officer son piloted crashed in Outer Mongolia, and all were killed. Lin’s rise and fall demonstrate the murderously unstable politics in Maoist China. See also Gang of Four and Jiang Qing. Further reading: Fairbank, John King. China: A New History. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1992; ————. The Great Chinese Revolution, 1800–1985. New York: Perennial Library, 1987; Jin, Qiu. The Culture of Power: The Lin Biao Incident in the Cultural Revolution. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999; Li, Zhisui. The Private Life of Chairman Mao. New York: Random House, 1994; Wu, Tien-wei. Lin Biao and the Gang of Four. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1983. Mitchell Newton-Matza literature Since 1950, vast numbers of new books have been published, and many from before 1950 have been republished as new editions, facsimiles of old editions, and, in recent years, as digital books. From the 1970s, there was also the emergence of what became known as “airport fiction,” describing books that were sold to air travelers with plenty of time to occupy. Digital books in particular have allowed access to many old and formerly out-of-print books and offer computersearchable functions giving readers and scholars the ability to find information more quickly. While this has allowed easier access to reference works, the vast majority of works of fiction continue to be published in book form. While many writers have other means of income, some have become very successful through their book sales, with British writer J. K. Rowling, the creator of Harry Potter, becoming the first writer to make more than $1 billion from sales of her books. british writers British writers have dominated much of the Englishspeaking world, with Bertrand Russell winning the Nobel Prize in literature in 1950, Sir Winston Churchill winning in 1953, William Golding—author of Lord of the Flies—winning in 1983, V. S. Naipaul in 2001, and Harold Pinter in 2005. Since 1950, other important British novelists include Richard Adams, author of Watership Down; Kingsley Amis, author of Lucky Jim; Martin Amis; Julian Barnes; H. E. Bates; Malcolm Bradbury, author of The History Man; John Braine, author of Room at the Top; Anita Brookner, author of Hotel du Lac; Anthony Burgess, author of Clockwork Orange; postfeminist writer Angela Carter; Norman Collins; Margaret Drabble; Daphne du Maurier; novelist and poet Lawrence Durrell, author of the Alexandria Quartet, and his younger brother naturalist and zoologist Gerald Durrell, author of My Family and Other Animals; John Fowles, author of The French Lieutenant’s Woman; Graham Greene; L. P. Hartley, author of The Go-Between; Laurie Lee, author of Cider with Rosie; Malcoln Lavry, author of Under the Volcano; Jessica Mitford, author of Hons and Rebels; John Mortimer, creator of Rumpole of the Bailey; Iris Murdoch, author of The Sea, The Sea, the 1978 winner of the Booker Prize; Anthony Powell, author of A Dance to the Music of Time; V. S. Pritchett, author of The Spanish Temper; Dame Edith Sitwell; Sir Osbert Sitwell; and C. P. Snow. There were also a number whose major literary work was in the first half of the 20th century who also produced more works in the second half, including W. H. Auden; Robert Graves, author of I, Claudius; Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World; W. Somerset Maugham; J. B. Priestley; Welsh-born novelist Howard Spring; Dylan Thomas, author of Under Milk Wood; and P. G. Wodehouse, creator of Jeeves. 268 literature There have been many writers of historical fiction, including a number who set their books during the Napoleonic Wars: Bernard Cornwell (pseudonym for Bernard Wiggins), creator of Sharpe; C. S. Forester (pseudonym for Cecil Louis Troughton Smith), creator of Horatio Hornblower; Alexander Kent (pseudonym for Douglas Reeman), creator of Richard Bolitho; Patrick O’Brian (pseudonym for Richard Patrick Russ), creator of the Aubrey-Maturin series; and Northcote Parkinson, creator of Richard DeLancey. Other writers of historical novels include: Charlotte Bingham; Catherine Cookson; George Macdonald Fraser, who resurrected Flashman from Tom Brown’s Schooldays for the “Flashman Papers”; Robert Harris; and Jean Plaidy (pseudonym for Eleanor Hibbert). Colonial and postcolonial themes have been explored by writers Joy Adamson, author of Born Free; Rumer Godden; Elspeth Huxley, author of The Flame Trees of Thika; Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, author Heat and Dust, the 1975 winner of the Booker Prize; M. M. Kaye, author of The Far Pavilions; Richard Mason, author of The World of Suzie Wong; John Masters, author of Bhowani Junction; R. K. Narayan, author of Vendor of Sweets; Paul Scott, author of “The Raj Quartet”; and Leslie Thomas, author of The Virgin Soldiers. James Clavell, author of Shogun, covered Asian historical topics. Romance novelists include Barbara Cartland, author of 723 titles; Anne Baker; Barbara Taylor Bradford; Jackie Collins; Lena Kennedy; Anne Mather, author of over 150 novels; Betty Neels, author of over 130 titles. The publishers Mills and Boon print thousands of romance titles, many written to a formula. Popular thriller writers include Eric Ambler; former politician Jeffrey Archer; Desmond Bagley; Len Deighton; Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond; Ken Follett; Frederick Forsyth, author of The Day of the Jackal; John le Carré (pseudonym for David Cornwell), creator of George Smiley; Alastair Maclean; and Douglas Reeman. War stories by Paul Brickhill; Nicholas Monsarrat (pseudonym for John Turney), author of The Cruel Sea; and Eric Williams, author of The Wooden Horse and The Tunnel have also sold well. Crime writers include Edward Aarons, author of the “Assignment” books; Margery Allingham; Agatha Christie; John Creasey; P. D. James (pseudonym for Phyllis White); and Ruth Rendell; and there have also been others who have set their stories during particular historical events such as Ellis Peters (pseudonym for Edith Pargeter), creator of Cadfael in medieval Shropshire; and H. R. F. Keating, who set his Inspector Ghote novels in British India. Mention should also be made of Josephine Tey whose novel The Daughter of Time changed the way many people have viewed Richard III. Playwrights include Arnold Wesker, who wrote Chicken Soup with Barley, and Terence Rattigan, author of Separate Tables. Poets include T. S. Eliot, who won the Nobel Prize in 1948, and D. J. Enright, author of The Laughing Hyena. Fantasy writers such as C. S. Lewis, creator of Narnia; Mervyn Peake; Terry Pratchett; and J. R. R. Tolkein, author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, have all been very popular. In science fiction, Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy; J. G. Ballard, who became famous for his semi-autobiographical The Empire of the Sun rather than his science fiction; Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001: A Space Odyssey; and John Wyndham have all been popular, with their books published in many languages. Children’s story writers include Enid Blyton, creator of Noddy; Anthony Buckeridge, creator of Jennings; Richmal Crompton, author of Just Williams; and the historical fiction of Cynthia Harnett, Rosemary Sutcliff, Geoffrey Trease, and Ronald Welch (pseudonym for Ronald Felton). The most famous playwrights include Harold Pinter, the Nobel laureate; John Osborne, author of Look Back in Anger; Dennis Potter, author of Son of Man; Tom Stoppard. Poets include John Betjeman, Ted Hughes, and Philip Larkin. Historians include Alan Bullock, E. H. Carr, Leonard Cottrell, Antonia Fraser, Christopher Hibbert, Christopher Hill, James/Jan Morris, John Prebble, and Hugh Trevor-Roper. There have also been a range of accounts of adventure, including Sir John Hunt’s The Ascent of Everest; Colonel P. H. Fawcett’s Exploration Fawcett; A Dragon Apparent by Norman Lewis; Patrick Leigh Fermor’s The Travellers Tree, and similar books. Mention should also be made of Cornish writers A. L Rowse and Derek Tangye. Travel writers include H. V. Morton; Eric Newby, author of A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush; and Freya Stark, author of Beyond the Euphrates and other books about the Middle East. american writers There have also been many prominent U.S. writers in this era, including four who won the Nobel Prize in literature: Ernest Hemingway in 1954, John Steinbeck in 1962, Canadian-born Saul Bellow in 1976, and Toni Morrison in 1993. Others include James Baldwin, author of Another Country; Paul Bowles, who moved to Tangier, Morocco, in 1952; Allen Drury, author of Advise and Consent; Alex Haley, author of Roots; Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird, which won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1961; Mary McCarthy, author of literature 26 9 Hanoi; Norman Mailer, author of Armies of the Night; James Michener; Chaim Potok; J. D. Salinger, author of The Catcher in the Rye; John Updike, author of Rabbit, Run and The Witches of Eastwick; Gore Vidal, author of Myra Breckenridge and historical novels; and Richard Wright, author of The Outsider. In recent years the writer who has achieved the largest number of sales has been Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code. Cowboy books have always been popular. Historical novelists include Steven Saylor, author of the Roma Sub- Rosa novels featuring Gordianus “the finder;” and surgeon and novelist Frank Slaughter. War stories include those by Irwin Shaw, author of The Young Lions; and Herman Wouk, author of The Caine Mutiny, which won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1952. Crime writers such as Truman Capote, author of In Cold Blood; Patricia Highsmith; and Mario Puzo, author of The Godfather have also sold many copies of their books. Science fiction writers such as Isaac Asimov, fantasy writers such as Ursula Le Guin, and horror writers such as Stephen King have sold well. There have been many popular writers such as V. C. Andrews; Clive Cussler; John Grisham; Thomas Harris; Robert Ludlum, author of The Bourne Identity; satirist P. J. O’Rourke; Danielle Steel; and Kathleen Windsor, author of Forever Amber. Playwrights include Arthur Miller, author of The Crucible; Eugene O’Neill, whose Long Day’s Journey into Night was published posthumously in 1956; Thornton Wilder who started writing in the 1920s but whose plays included The Matchmaker; and Tennessee Williams whose most famous works such as A Streetcar Named Desire were written in the 1940s, and who won the 1955 Pulitzer Prize with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Mention should also be made of Edward Albee, author of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, his first full-length play. There have also been many important nonfiction writers, including Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring (1963); political commentator Noam Chomsky; economist and Professor J. K. Galbraith; and John Gunther, author of the “Inside” books. American poets include Robert Lowell, Ogden Nash, and Sylvia Plath. other authors in english Elsewhere in the English-speaking world, there have been many other Nobel laureates, including Samuel Beckett from Ireland, in 1969, author of Waiting for Godot; Patrick White from Australia, in 1973; Wole Soyinka from Nigeria, in 1986; Nadine Gordimer from South Africa, in 1991 (and the Booker Prize in 1974); Derek Walcott from St. Lucia, in 1992; Seamus Heaney from Ireland, in 1995; and J. M. Coetzee, author of The Life and Times of Michael K, from South Africa, in 2003. Prolific South African writer Bryce Courtney, author of The Power of One, moved to Australia. Irish writers include Brendan Behan, author of Borstal Boy; James Donleavy, author of The Ginger Man; Frank McCourt, author of Angela’s Ashes; and William Trevor, author of The Old Boys. Australian writers include Thea Astley; Peter Carey; Albert Facey; feminist Germaine Greer; Xavier Herbert, author of Poor Fellow My Country; George Johnston, author of My Brother Jack; Thomas Keneally, author of Schindler’s Ark; Colleen McCullough, author of The Thorn Birds; David Malouf, author of Fly Away Peter; Alan Moorehead, author of The White Nile; poet Les Murray; Neville Shute (pseudonym for Nevil Shute Norway); Christina Stead; Arthur Upfield, creator of the aboriginal detective “Bonaparte”; and Morris West, author of The Devil’s Advocate and The Ambassador. New Zealand writers include Janet Frame, author of Owls Do Cry, crime writer Ngaio Marsh, and Alan Duff, author of Once Were Warriors. The writer most strongly identified with South Africa is Wilbur Smith, who set most of his books in South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Other South African authors include Stuart Cloete, author of Rags of Glory, and Alan Paton, author of Cry, The Beloved Country. There have also been many Canadian authors, perhaps the most famous from this period being novelist Margaret Atwood and Thomas Costain. european and south american writers French writers since 1950 include Nobel laureates François Mauriac (1952), Algerian-French writer and philosopher Albert Camus (1957), diplomat and poet Saint-John Perse (1960), Jean-Paul Sartre (1964; he declined the prize), and Claude Simon (1985). Other famous writers of this period include writer and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir; structural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, author of Anthropologie structurale; André Malraux; historical novelist Zoë Oldenburg; and Jean Tardieu. Belgian writer Georges Simenon created Inspector Maigret and wrote over 500 books; and Frenchman Gerard de Villiers wrote the best-selling “S.A.S.” murder mysteries set in various countries around the world. Writers in Germany who won the Nobel Prize in literature include German- Swedish writer Nelly Sachs, in 1966; Heinrich Böll, in 1972; Günter Grass for The Tin Drum, in 1999; and Austrian feminist playwright and novelist Elfriede Jelinek, in 2004. Mention should also be made of Bul- 27 0 literature garian-born novelist Elias Canetti, who won the prize in 1981 for his writing in German. The Italian Nobel laureates were lyrical poet Salvatore Quasimodo, in 1959; poet and writer Eugenio Montale, in 1975; and playwright and theater director Dario Fo, in 1997. Possibly the best-known Italian writers are Giuseppe di Lampedusa, who wrote The Leopard, which he completed just before his death, the book being published posthumously; Lois de Bernières, author of Captain Corelli’s Mandolin; and Alberto Moravia, author of Women of Rome and Roman Tales. A number of writers in Spanish won the Nobel Prize in literature: Juan Ramón Jiménez, in 1956, Vicente Aleixandre, in 1977, and Camilo José Cela, in 1989. Salvador de Madariaga wrote many books on Spain and the Spanish-speaking world, most of which were translated into English. The others were the Guatemalan Miguel Ángel Asturias, in 1967; Chilean poet Pablo Neruda (pen name for Ricardo Elicer Neftali Reyes Basoalto), in 1971; the Colombian Gabriel García Márquez, author of One Hundred Years of Solitude, in 1982; and the Mexican Octavio Paz, in 1990. From Portugal, José Saramago won the Nobel Prize in 1998, and in recent years there has been extensive literature about Portuguese Africa. Portuguese-language poets include the Angolan nationalist and later president Agostinho Neto; there have also been many books by Brazilian lyricist Paulo Coelho. From the Soviet Union, Boris Pasternak, author of Doctor Zhivago, was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1958 but declined it. Other Russians who became Nobel laureates include novelist Mikhail Sholokhov (1965), dissident novelist and dramatist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1970), and Joseph Brodsky (1987). Mention should also be made of Russian- born writer Vladimir Nabokov. From Eastern Europe, Jewish-Hungarian writer and concentration camp survivor Imre Kertész won the Nobel Prize in 2002; writer and poet Jaroslav Seifert from the Czech Republic won the prize in 1984. Polish-born American writer Isaac Bashevis Singer won the prize in 1978 for his work in Yiddish, poet Czesław Miłosz in 1980, and Wisława Szymborska in 1996. In 1961 the Yugoslav writer and diplomat Ivo Andric´ won the Nobel Prize for his Bosnian Chronicles, which covers many aspects of Bosnian history. Two Greeks became Nobel laureates: poet and diplomat Giorgos Seferis, in 1963, and modernist poet Odysseas Elytis, in 1979. From Scandinavia, Nobel laureates since 1950 include Swedes Pär Lagerkvist, in 1951, Eyvind Johnson, and poet Harry Martinson, in 1974, and Icelandic writer Halldór Laxness, in 1955. There was also much renewed interest in the Viking sagas, many of which were translated and published in English and French during this period. the middle east and india For Middle Eastern literature, Israeli writer Shmuel Yosef Agnon was one of the joint Nobel Prize winners in 1966 for his work in Hebrew. Other important works of Israeli literature include Menachem Begin’s The Revolt, and books about Jerusalem by Teddy Kollek. Palestinian writers include American resident Edward Said and Lebanese writer Edward Atiyah, author of An Arab Tells His Story and Lebanon Paradise. North African writers include Naguib Mahfouz from Egypt who won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1988; Gamal al-Ghitani from Cairo has written many books, including Zayni Barakat about the Mamluks in Egypt; and Algerian writer Albert Memmi wrote The Pillar of Salt. There have also been many prominent Turkish writers, including Yashar Kemal, author of Memed, My Hawk; Irgan Orga, who did much to explain Turkish history and culture to English-language readers; and postmodernist writer Orhan Pamuk, who won the Nobel Prize in 2006. Most African books tend to have been written in English, French, or other European languages, but the author of what has been described as the most quintessentially African story is Camara Laye, from French Guinea, author of The Dark Child, or The African Child. In India, there have also been large numbers of writers who have written in English, including Dom Moraes; India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who wrote The Discovery of India; and Salman Rushdie, author of the controversial Midnight’s Children and the even more controversial The Satanic Verses. asian writers Mao Zedong, the leader of China from 1949 until his death in 1976, wrote poetry, but is best known as a writer for his “Little Red Book,” for which 900 million copies were issued in Chinese, and in other languages, including Arabic, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Spanish, and Vietnamese. It was first published in April 1964, and its red plastic cover made it well known around the world. Many other Communist Party publications, such as the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, also had millions of copies printed. To help promote new literary works literature 27 1 published in China, the monthly journal Chinese Literature was published from 1951. Of the other Chinese writers since 1950, perhaps the best-known is Han Suyin, whose five-volume autobiographical saga began with The Crippled Tree and whose A Many Splendoured Thing became a best seller around the world. In more recent times, Jung Chang wrote Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China, describing the family’s life during the Cultural Revolution. Mention should also be made of the prolific writer and academic Lin Yutang and de Lucy Ching, author of One of the Lucky Ones. Xingjian Gao, who wrote about the Tiananmen Square protests, was declared a persona non grata in China; he won the Nobel Prize for literature in 2000. Two Japanese writers won the Nobel Prize in literature: Kawabata Yasunari in 1968, and Oe Kenzaburo in 1994. However, the most famous Japanese writers of this period were undoubtedly Abe Kobo and Mishima Yukio. Many Korean works have been translated into English and published by Heinemann Asia, but apart from translations of Lady Hong’s Memoirs of a Korean Queen, few Korean books have managed to achieve much literary interest outside Korea. The works of North Korean leaders Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il have been published in many different editions and several languages, by the Foreign Languages Press in Pyongyang. For mainland Southeast Asia, there have been many books published in Burmese, Khmer, Thai, and Vietnamese, and even a number being published in Lao. After independence, there have been many books published in Burmese, including many items on Burmese history. With the import of books now restricted, this has helped the Burmese publishing industry and local literature. Prior to 1970, there were a number of novels published in Khmer, with a massive increase in the Khmer-language publishing industry from 1970 to 1975, including the work of Long Boret, prime minister from 1973 to 1975. Similarly Vietnamese literature has followed political trends, with many books published in South Vietnam until 1975, and then few works of literature published in Vietnam until the 1990s. In Thailand, the prosperity of the country has ensured a regular number of books in Thai being published. After Malaya became independent, the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in Kuala Lumpur encouraged writing in Malay, which has flourished. In neighboring Singapore, there have been many books published, a large number being historical works covering aspects of Singapore’s history, but also many nostalgic novels about the country’s colonial past and a number of stories set in modern Singapore. Further Reading: Blain, Virginia, Patricia Clements, and Isobel Grundy, eds. The Feminist Companion to Literature in English. London: B. T. Batsford, 1990; Drabble, Margaret. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987; Pynsent, R. B., and S. Kanikova, eds. The Everyman Companion to East European Literature. London: J.M. Dent, 1993; Stringer, Jenny, ed. The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Literature in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996; Welch, Robert, ed. The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Justin Corfield Li Zongren (Li Tsung-jen) (1891–1969) Chinese general and politician Li Zongren (Li Tsung-jen) was an important military and political leader of Guangxi (Kwangsi) Province, along with Bai Chongxi (Pai Chung-hsi), between 1925 and 1949. He joined the Kuomintang (KMT, or Nationalist Party), founded by Sun Yat-sen, and commanded the Seventh Army; it played an important part in the Northern Expedition (1926–28) that brought the Koumintang to power. Li distinguished himself as a skilled military commander in the Northern Expedition and the Sino-Japanese War, where he commanded the Nationalist troops in an important victory in 1938 at Taierzhuang in Shandong (Shantung) Province. Li and Bai, however, represented the Warlord Era, joining the KMT in part to preserve and expand their regional power by controlling their army as distinct units that often disobeyed the central government. Their group is called the “Guangxi clique” and fought against the central government in Nanjing (Nanking) between 1929 and 1930. They also allowed the fleeing Chinese Communists to pass of through Guangxi during the Long March. When the National Assembly convened in Nanjing in 1948 to implement the new constitution, Li was elected vice president of China (Chiang Kai-shek was president). Li became acting president when Chiang resigned in 1949. However, Chiang still retained most of his power and the loyalty of key army commanders, and when Li failed to negotiate a settlement with the CCP in the civil war, Chiang abruptly resigned, and Bai chose to flee to Taiwan. 272 Li Zongren (Li Tsung-jen) After Li’s departure for New York, Chiang resumed the presidency in Taiwan. Li refused to join the Nationalists on Taiwan and was impeached in absentia. The United States became an outspoken critic of Chiang’s rule. Li remained in the United States until 1966, when he returned to mainland China and voiced support of the Communist government. He died shortly afterward. Further reading: Chen, Lifu. The Storm Clouds Clear over China: The Memoir of Ch’en Li-fu, 1900–1993. Sidney H. Chang and Ramon H. Meyers, eds. and comps. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1994; Hutchings, Graham. Modern China: A Guide to a Century of Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001; Tong, Te-kong, and Li Tsung- Jen. The Memoirs of Li Tsung-Jen. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979. Sarah Boslaugh Lumumba, Patrice (1925–1961) Congolese prime minister Patrice Lumumba was the first prime minister of the independent Republic of the Congo. Born in Kasai Province in the eastern Congo, he came from a small tribe or ethnic group—the Batatele. This background was to handicap him in future dealings with rivals who came from major tribal groupings. Lumumba was born July 2, 1925. Educated by Protestant missionaries, he entered the postal service and became a contributor to the nascent Congolese press. He also became active in trade union activities, and by 1955 was president of a regional labor union. Convicted of post office embezzlement, Lumumba, after his release from prison in 1957, went on to forge a nationwide political party, the Congolese Nationalist Movement, in October 1958. After attending an All-African Peoples’ Conference in newly independent Ghana in December 1958, Lumumba became a militant nationalist. In 1959 he joined other nationalist leaders in opposing the Belgian plan for gradual independence in five years. The Belgians were forced to promise independence by June 30, 1960. Elections held in May 1960 gave Lumumba’s party the largest number of votes, and he was offered the position of prime minister. At that time he began to talk about economic and social changes. Because some of the rhetoric sounded socialist, many in the West feared that the anticolonialist tone in his speeches meant an alliance with the Soviet Union. After he formed an independent government, on June 23, 1960, Lumumba faced disorder seven days later. Army units rebelled, the province of Katanga seceded, and Belgium sent in troops. Lumumba called upon the United Nations (un ) to restore order; however, it did not intervene. He then turned to the Soviet Union for planes to transport his troops. He also asked independent African states to support him. These steps were ineffective and caused his internal allies to turn away from him. On September 5 the president of the Congo, Joseph Kasavubu, who had advocated a more moderate course and favored some form of autonomy, declared Lumumba deposed. On September 14 the army head, Joseph Mobutu, seized power with the approval of Kasavubu. Mobuto and Kasavubu soon reached an accommodation with the UN, which recognized the government in October 1960. Now powerless, Lumumba sought to travel to Stanleyville (now Kisangani) in northeast Congo, where he still had support. On his way there, however, he was intercepted by soldiers of Joseph Mobuto. After an imprisonment of three months, Mobuto turned Lumumba over to Moïse Tshombe, the head of secessionist Katanga Province, on January 17, 1961. Lumumba was murdered that same night. In retrospect, Lumumba’s ideas and rhetoric do not appear so radical. He supported a united Congo as opposed to its division along regional/ethnic/ tribal lines. He supported the end of colonialism and Lumumba, Patrice 273 Patrice Lumumba (center) became the first prime minister of the independent Republic of the Congo in May 1960. proclaimed neutrality in the cold war, with an emphasis on “Africanist” values. These sentiments ultimately led to his undoing. Further reading: Lumumba-Kasongo, Tukumbi. The Dynamics of Economic and Political Relationships Between Africa and Foreign Powers: A Study in International Relations. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999; Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges. The Congo from Leopold to Kabila: A People’s History. New York: Zed Books, 2002. Norman C. Rothman

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki