Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History P

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

paideia Paideia is an ancient Greek system of education designed to show young people how to become an ideal citizen, to strive toward nobility of character, excellence of spirit, usefulness to society, and to exercise the body properly. Most important, it instructs one in how to be the highest form of human possible. These ideals, which may sound lofty to modern readers, were so central to Greek culture prior to 323 b.c.e. that they were a large part of what made someone a Greek. It was believed that to destroy a Greek city-state’s educational system would destroy that city’s culture, and in one noteworthy case, that led directly to a city’s collapse, conquest, and obliteration. Paideia was more than just an educational system, as it refl ected the very essence of Greek culture. The study of this Greek educational system is the study of ancient Greece itself. In adults as well as children, the concept of paideia is tied to the concept of virtue, called arete. According to Xenophon, renowned as a scholar, philosopher, soldier, historian, and general, the paideia education was “the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature.” Furthermore, the oldest defi nition of education (to educe, to draw out) accords with the Greek notion that the ideal true form of a person resides somewhere within that person and can be drawn out by philosophical instruction. The word paideia is also used in the word encyclopedia, which comes from two Greek words meaning a “general education.” The two greatest, most powerful, and most renowned Greek city-states were Athens and Sparta. Xenophon, steeped in Spartan culture, discussed the meaning of paideia in his treatise on the Spartan (Lacedaemonian) constitution. Paideia also permeated Athenian culture. The Ephebic Oath was sworn by an Athenian youth at the completion of his boyhood training (at about age 19) at the point when he ceased to be a boy and became a man and an Athenian citizen. The goal of Athenian paideia was in large part to produce citizens who could live up to each of the following points of the Ephebic Oath: I will not disgrace my sacred arms Nor desert my comrade, wherever I am stationed. I will fi ght for things sacred And things profane. And both alone and with all to help me. I will transmit my fatherland not diminished But greater and better than before. I will obey the ruling magistrates Who rule reasonably And I will observe the established laws And whatever laws in the future May be reasonably established. If any person seek to overturn the laws, Both alone and with all to help me, I will oppose him. I will honor the religion of my fathers. I call to witness the Gods . . . The borders of my fatherland, The wheat, the barley, the vines, And the trees of the olive and the fi g. P 325 The Ephebic Oath was designed to produce wellrounded guardians of the Athenian culture, belief system, and philosophical thought process. Note the emphasis on use of skill at arms to defend the laws, the religion, and the sacred. Other examples of Greek society’s lasting attention on paideia abound, particularly in the principles that were inscribed on their most sacred places. For example, inscribed on the temple at Delphi, to which even the wisest of the Greeks journeyed to seek the advice of the god Phoebus Apollo, are such phrases as “know thyself” and “nothing in excess.” The Greek city-states were alike in many respects, and yet they fought with one another for many generations. It was not atypical for one Greek city to annihilate or completely enslave another city as a result of this internecine warfare. Perhaps the most powerful Greek city-state was Sparta, renowned for its powerful military, to which all male children were carefully indoctrinated from an early age. Many ancient authors note the number of nations that were saved from destruction by a single Spartan warrior. An endangered nation that appealed to Sparta for help would receive a single Spartan commander, who would successfully organize the defense into a victorious army. Paideia was instrumental in the success of this city over many generations during which a variety of powerful rivals were unable to overcome Sparta. This conclusion is supported by the eventual conquest of Sparta by Argos, another Greek city. Argos did not destroy the town of Sparta, slaughter its citizens after the battle, or enslave its population. Argos compelled the Spartans to replace their own paideia with the paideia used in Argos. Never again was Sparta at the forefront of Greek military powers. Roman units, having heard of Sparta’s reputation, eagerly sought a battle with the city but instead found a humble village inhabited by mostly elderly people, unable to mount a noteworthy defense. This points to the difference— between being a superpower and being an anonymous agrarian village—that paideia made to the Greeks. See also Athenian predemocracy; Greek mythology and pantheon; Hellenization; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Further reading: Plutarch. Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. New York: Modern Library, 1932; ———. On Sparta. New York: Penguin Classics, 2005; Swift, Fletcher Harper. The Athenian Ephebic Oath of Allegiance in American Schools and Colleges. University of California Publications in Education 11, no 1 (1947). Joseph R. Gerber paleoanthropology For three generations the Leakey family has been pioneers in the fi eld of paleoanthropology, seeking to uncover the origins of human beings. Louis Leakey (1903–72), who was born in Kenya, started exploring remains of human ancestors in East Africa in the 1930s. Experts, according to conventional wisdom, believed that Asia had been the source of human evolution and greeted him with initial skepticism. By the late 1940s Leakey and his wife, Mary Leakey (1913–96), had found the skull of a Miocene hominoid and went on to fi nd fossil bones of other human ancestors. Although many of Leakey’s conclusions regarding the age and classifi cations of his discoveries remain highly controversial, his works led the way for important new interpretations and work into the origins of hominids. In the Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania, Mary excavated remains of Zinjanthropus boisei, now known as Australopithecus boisei, in 1959. In 1979 she found a line of early human footprints dating back 3.6 million years, thereby showing that early human ancestors were bipedal. These and other ongoing explorations have led most experts to conclude that Africa was the evolutionary source of humankind. Their son, Richard E. Leakey (b. 1944) and his wife, Meave G. Leakey (b. 1942), carried on work in northern Kenya on Lake Turkana where they found important skulls of Homo habilis and Homo erectus and a nearly complete skeleton of “Turkana Boy,” a youngster that lived some 1.6 million years ago. In 2001 Meave found a skull of Kenyanthropus platyopsa, a new genus and species. Their daughter, Louise N. Leakey (b. 1972), continues the family tradition and heads the Koobi Fora Research Project along Lake Turkana searching and excavating for fossils; Louise’s research focuses on the evolution of early human ancestors, seeking answers to the origins of Homo, humankind’s genus. New generations of paleoanthropologists, including Donald Johanson, Yohannes Haile-Selassie, and others, have expanded fi eldwork into Ethiopia, as well as central Africa. In 1974 Johanson discovered “Lucy” an early human ancestor. Scientists now believe that human evolution dates back 6 or 7 million years with about a dozen different species of human ancestors. The Leakeys were also ardent environmentalists and supporters of animal conservation. Louis mentored a new generation of young scholars such as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Biruté Galdikas Brindamour, who conducted groundbreaking fi eld studies of chimpanzees, mountain gorillas, and orangutans. Similarly, Richard 326 paleoanthropology became head of the Kenya Wildlife Services, championing the cause of wildlife preservation and a ban on the sale of ivory in order to preserve elephant herds, as well as serving as a member of the Kenyan parliament. See also Ethiopia, ancient; Fertile Crescent. Further reading: Johanson, Donald E., and Edgar Blake. From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996; Leakey, Richard, and Roger Lewin. Origins: What New Discoveries Reveal About the Emergence of Our Species and Its Possible Future. London: Penguin, 1991; Morell, Virginia. Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Family and the Quest for Humankind’s Beginnings. New York: Touchstone, 1995. Janice J. Terry Paleolithic age The Paleolithic age in the Pleistocene epoch of prehistory begins with the fi rst use of manufactured tools by hominids and ends with the thaw of the last ice age (leading into the Mesolithic and the Neolithic age with the advent of agriculture). Its exact duration varies from place to place and from hominid group to hominid group. Divided into three sections—chronologically the Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic (with the Epipaleolithic following this last in place of the Mesolithic in parts of the world without major glaciation)—our hard data on the Paleolithic is scant compared to the archaeological riches of the Neolithic. Most of what we know is inferred from fossil record, amplifi ed by genetic research and art from the Upper Paleolithic. The term hominid refers to members of the Hominidae family of primates, including all humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. The term human is more loaded and more controversial than hominid (or hominine for those hominids with a capacity for language and culture). According to paleontologist Richard Leakey, human refers to all bipedal hominids, which includes members of the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo. BIPEDALISM Bipedalism, or the ability to stand and walk upright, was a major change relative to the human ancestors and a signifi cant alteration in structure. It was necessary for tool use, because it keeps two limbs free for other manipulation, although because of the several million year gap between bipedalism and tool use, there must have been some other initial benefi t. There are two leading theories, the fi rst positing the ability to carry things while walking. Carrying may seem trivial at fi rst, but consider the length of time that human children are helpless — compared to other species—and the gain to the species in being able to better protect those children. The second theory privileges the energy effi ciency of human bipedal locomotion. Although initial studies suggested that bipedalism is less effi cient than quadrupedalism, this is true only when comparing bipeds to quadrupeds like cats, dogs, and horses—species that have evolved to make their quadrupedal motion as effi cient as possible. TOOL USAGE AND BRAIN SIZE There are four stages of human prehistory, the fi rst of which is the evolution of that fi rst human species—the bipedal ape descendant—7 million years ago. The second is the adaptive radiation of these early humans. Adaptive radiation is a biological term to describe the rapid creation of new species following a radical change in environment or ability, in this case the gains of bipedalism. With the third stage, the Homo genus arose from this speciation with a considerable increase in brain size. Homo erectus dates to 2 million years ago, and its predecessor, Homo habilis (who some researchers would classify as an australopithecine) dates to 500,000 years before that. The fi nal stage is the arrival of modern humans: imaginative, innovative, artistic, language-using hominines. Not every human species is an ancestor of modern humans; in fact, on the human family tree most are cousins or uncles. The most signifi cant to the Paleolithic age are the Homo species. The smaller-brained australopithecines, despite their bipedalism, lacked a signifi cant modern human feature: the two vertical canals in the inner ear are much smaller in Australopithecus and prehuman hominids than in the Homo genus. It is thought that those canals may contribute to upright balance in bipedal locomotion, and while we know from fossilized footprints and the structure of the Australopithecus pelvis that he must have been bipedal, he may have been less steady on his feet. Australopithecus was not a toolmaker, though Australopithecus robustus had the manual dexterity required. Non-Homo hominids lacked the mental capacity to conceive of tools and manufacture them, but they probably used them opportunistically—as chimpanzees can learn to use keys, for instance. Tool use only fl ourished in the Homo genus. Homo habilis was probably the progenitor of the genus, descended from one of the australopithecines. Although his cranial capacity—and the surmised size of Paleolithic age 327 his brain—was half as large as the australopithecines’, it is still less than half that of modern humans’, and some researchers are reluctant to include habilis in the genus, preferring to see him as the last of the australopithecines. Habilis’s arms were unusually long—like an australopithecine’s—and his hips were wider. His increased brain size was enough to master the manufacture of stone tools. Tools allowed habilis to rely on meat as a larger part of his diet—an enormous metabolic and evolutionary benefi t. A less specialized, more fl exible diet allows a species to prosper in more environments and through more climatic changes. OLDUWAN INDUSTRY Habilis was an Olduwan tool user. The Olduwan industry is named for the Olduvai Gorge in modern-day Tanzania. In an archaeological context an industry refers to a related group of artifacts and the processes directly related to them—not to the people, their other practices and behaviors, or their species. (Thus habilis was an Olduwan user, but Olduwan users are not by defi nition Homo habilis.) The Olduwan industry is found in eastern and southern Africa as well as Europe—where a Homo erectus group brought it. Olduwan tools were nearly always right-handed. Lateralization—the unequal distribution of skill and tasks between the right and left hand—developed in the Homo genus and possibly in Australopithecus. Lateralization is an evolutionary puzzle, not simply because of the question of what benefi t hand specialization has, but because left-handedness has existed in a minority of the population for so long that there must be a reason for its genetic preservation. The basic method of the Olduwan industry was to strike an appropriate stone (such as obsidian or chalcedony) with another stone, called a hammer stone, which fi t easily into the hand and was suffi ciently hard (such as quartz). The blow would produce fl akes, and the cone of force from the blow made for easily controlled fractures to give the fl akes sharp cutting edges—sharp enough to cut through animal hide or saw through tendons, the fundamental tasks of early cutting tools. ACHEULEAN AND CLACTONIAN INDUSTRIES The Olduwan industry developed into the Acheulean and Clactonian industries, and the groups had contact with each other. Acheulean toolmakers refi ned Olduwan methods by using pieces of wood and bone to trim fl akes through pressure instead of repeated hammer stone strikes, allowing the creation of cutting edges nearly as sharp as modern razorblades—and for the fi rst handaxes, made from the sharpened core the fl akes left behind. While the Olduwan industry was barely advanced from opportunism, consisting in crude terms of broken rocks, the Acheulean required advanced planning and intent—the province of the larger-brained Homo erectus. THE HOMO SPECIES Of the many Homo species that existed, seven other than habilis and sapiens (modern humans) are worth examining: Homo rudolfensis is attested in only one specimen, a skull estimated to be 1.9 million years old. It may be a specimen of Homo habilis, an ancestor, or a sibling also descended from the australopithecines, but this uncertainty demonstrates that our knowledge of the human family tree is probably full of gaps that future discoveries may fi ll. Homo erectus was once believed to be the oldest member of the genus but remains signifi cant not only because of its considerable cranial capacity but because it is responsible for much of humankind’s migration. Erectus settled in much of Africa and Southeast Asia, spreading its tool industries (Olduwan and Acheulean). Erectus was probably the fi rst species to exhibit social behavior similar to modern humans’, and he may have abandoned habilis’s scavenging to become a full-fl edged hunter- gatherer. He would not have been capable of complex speech: If he had a language, his vocal system would have limited it to simple sounds. Erectus is the common ancestor of Homo fl oresiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens, and a relation of some sort to Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster is probably a child of erectus. Although some believe ergaster came fi rst, he has a larger cranial capacity and generally more modern features. The fossils found with ergaster remains suggest that he was an Acheulean tool user and had mastered fi re, perhaps using it to cook food. Homo antecessor is among the oldest human remains found in Europe and was probably the child of erectus and an ancestor of both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis: It is widely believed to be either the parent of Homo heidelbergensis or a specimen of that species, and sapiens to be either its child or grandchild. Antecessor remains have been found with manmade cuts in the bone, which could indicate either cannibalism or interspecies predation among different Homo species. Homo heidelbergensis is the parent of Homo neanderthalensis. Though little is known of it beyond its Acheulean tool use, it may have been the fi rst to bury its dead, and if the genus had not already developed a capacity for language with erectus, heidelbergensis may have been the fi rst to do so. 328 Paleolithic age Homo neanderthalensis is popularly known as Neanderthal Man and lived for some 200,000 years, dying off 29,000 years ago, making it one of the last relatives of modern humans. Slightly shorter, stouter, and more barrel-chested than modern humans, neanderthalensis had a larger cranial capacity and probably a bigger brain. He was part of the Mousterian industry, with a heavy reliance on bone, horn, and wood implements for shaping fl akes—and preferred working with wood and bone over stone. Since neanderthalensis lived in a cold climate and through part of the last ice age, these organic materials may have been more practical than fl int and obsidian, which become brittle and splinter in cold temperatures. Neanderthalensis may have possessed human speech: Given the shape of his larynx and the position of the tongue, it would have been higher pitched and more nasal than the modern human voice. There’s considerable evidence that he buried his dead, but whether this had any religious signifi cance is a matter of speculation. Until very recently neanderthalensis was believed to be the last living member of the Homo genus other than Homo sapiens—our only cousin or sibling. In the 21st century Homo fl oresiensis remains were discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores, where island speciation had resulted in the development of giant lizards, dwarf elephants, and other creatures of atypical size. Floresiensis, which died out only 12,000 years ago in the Neolithic, was a furry dwarf with long arms and small brain, at the low range of chimpanzee brain size. His cranial capacity is small enough to warrant debate about whether he qualifi es as a Homo or Australopithecus, but with such a late date there can be little doubt of his Homo parentage through some child of erectus. It is too soon to predict how this will change our models of prehistoric man. Modern humans—the species Homo sapiens— developed in the Middle Paleolithic period, a time also marked by the mastery of fi re by human species, the evolution of neanderthalensis, and most likely the use of fi re to smoke and preserve meat. Homo sapiens had a greater cranial capacity than any species other than neanderthalensis, and it may have been luck that preserved sapiens while his neanderthalensis cousin perished: Both were expert toolmakers, and both were well adapted to many environments. Sapiens developed in Africa, and there are two competing theories to explain how the species populated the rest of the world. THE ORIGIN OF MODERN HUMANS One theory is the “out of Africa” hypothesis, also known as the “Eden” hypothesis or single-origin hypothesis, which stipulates that all Homo sapiens stem from a common ancestral group that began in Africa and migrated elsewhere, perhaps following the migratory patterns of erectus (even while displacing that ancestor species). The multiregional origin hypothesis, in contrast, proposes that different ethnic groups of Homo sapiens developed from different groups of Homo erectus and did so independently. Supporters of this hypothesis believe that, facing similar evolutionary needs, sapiens would be the inevitable evolutionary end of erectus and that no common ancestor group is needed to explain the presence of Homo sapiens in so many different environments. While some fossil evidence can be used in support of the multiregional hypothesis, and the discovery of Homo fl oresiensis at least demonstrates that non-sapiens species of the Homo genus persisted very late into prehistory, molecular data increasingly supports the single-origin hypothesis. REGIONALIZATION AND LANGUAGE During the Upper Paleolithic—about 40,000 years ago—regional cultures developed, with hunter- gather ers organizing into groups with stronger ethnic ties. Generally such groups would be composed of bands of about 20 to 25 family members, with 20 bands associating together in a loose tribe. Ethnic identity—the idea of associating with these tribal members, or a related tribe, even without direct family ties—began to develop. Bone and horn were adopted as toolmaking materials, making for better darts, spears, and harpoons; barbed fi sh hooks and toothed tools (like primitive saws) were developed. It was also during this last stage that humans migrated to Australia (about 50,000 years ago) and the Americas (25,000 years ago). Language may date to the Upper Paleolithic, but researchers are at odds over the question of whether a human species with the capacity of speech could have existed without developing language. There is no evidence of language use in the Middle Paleolithic, and arguments for it depend on the biological fact that the speech organs existed and the notion that advanced tool use and hunting would not have been possible without advanced communication among members of the group. By the Upper Paleolithic it is highly likely that language had developed. Primitive art emerges at this time: the so-called Venus fi gurines, the fi rst of which (made of stone, not ceramic like the Upper Paleolithic examples) actually appear in the Middle Paleolithic. Venus fi gurines were small, crude fi gurines of women with prominent stomachs from pregnancy or obesity. They have been the subject of much speculation, particularly Paleolithic age 329 in the area of prehistoric religion and magic: They may have been symbols of fertility or portraits of a mother goddess. Some researchers have used them to support a theory that early cultures were religious and/or socially matriarchal. Another fi gurine from the middle of the Upper Paleolithic, found in a German cave, shows a statue of a lion man similar in style to various French cave paintings. The craftsmanship is extremely sophisticated compared to the abstraction of the Venus fi gurines, with facial details and incised strokes to represent fur. The Paleolithic ended with the coming of the ice age in those parts of the world where glaciation occurred and the coming of agriculture. The Mesolithic in glaciated areas and the Epipaleolithic in the rest of the world, transitional periods leading to the Neolithic immediately prior to “early history,” followed. See also Andes: Neolithic; paleoanthropology; religious inclinations, prehistory. Further reading: Ardrey, Robert. The Hunting Hypothesis. New York: Atheneum, 1976; Foley, Robert A. Another Unique Species. New York: Longman Scientifi c and Technical, 1987; Gibson, Kathleen, and Tim Ingold, eds. Tools, Language, and Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Jaynes, Julian. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. New York: Penguin, 1993; Johanson, Donald C., and Maitland A. Edey. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; Leakey, Richard. The Origin of Humankind. New York: HarperCollins, 1994; Lewin, Roger. The Origin of Modern Humans. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1993; Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow, 1994; Potts, Richard. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. New York: Aldine, 1988; Stringer, Christopher, and Clive Gamble. In Search of the Neanderthals. London: Thames and Hudson, 1993. Bill Kte’pi Palmyra Palmyra (City of Palms), an oasis in the northeastern desert in present-day Syria, became a trading center and stopping point on the Silk Road as early as the 19th century b.c.e. Its importance as a trading point rose as the Seleucid Empire declined and the Palmyrenes became middlemen in trade destined for other parts of the Roman Empire. It was made a Roman protectorate in the fi rst century c.e. whereby residents became Roman citizens, with all its benefi ts, but enjoying considerable local autonomy. As their wealth from trade and commerce grew, Palmyrenes built lavish temples, public monuments, and elaborate stone funerary towers for the burial of their dead. The Palmyran ruler Odaynath defeated the Sassanids in 260 c.e. and then proclaimed himself king of kings. Soon afterward he was assassinated, perhaps on orders from his wife, Queen Zenobia. Known for her beauty and ambition, Zenobia, who claimed to have descended from Cleopatra, ruled in the name of her young son. Exceedingly ambitious, she led major military battles in her own right. By 269 she ruled virtually all of Syria and then moved to invade Egypt and parts of present-day Turkey. Declaring complete independence from Rome, she had coins minted with her own image and in 271 proclaimed her son Augustus. Rome retaliated by launching a successful military attack under Domitius Aurelianus on Palmyra in 272. Aurelianus took the city and captured Zenobia. He spared the city, leaving only a small force to maintain Roman rule. Shortly thereafter Palmyra rose in revolt, and Aurelianus retaliated by having his troops pillage and raze the city, which never recovered its former glory. Zenobia was allegedly brought back to Rome in golden chains and pensioned off to live out the rest of her days in Tibur, present-day Tivoli, in Italy. See also Nabataeans; Roman Empire; Sassanid Empire. Further reading: Cassini, Eleonora. A Journey to Palmyra: Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2005; Stoneman, Richard. Palmyra and Its Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. Janice J. Terry Panathenaic Festival The Panathenaic Festival (Panathenaia) was Athens’s most important religious celebration and the second oldest one in the region. During the festival inhabitants of Attica (Panathenaic means “all-Athenian”) and other parts of the empire honored the goddess Athena Polias’s birthday (who had leaped from the head of Zeus, according to myth). Since Athena was the city’s protector, the whole festivity had great religious and political signifi cance. It was traditionally celebrated around the 28th day of Hekatombion, the fi rst month in the Athenian calendar (roughly July), in which some other minor festivals, 330 Palmyra such as the Kronia and the Synoikia, also took place. In accordance with tradition it was King Theseus—an Athenian hero closely related to Athena—who instituted the Panathenaia, among other cults (other sources, however, point at Erichtonios as its creator). Under the archonship of Hippokleides and afterward under Peisistratus (566 b.c.e.) the festival was extended to include a number of athletic competitions and musical performances. The Great Panathenaia—including these games and contests—commenced every four years. Both literary and archaeological sources concerning the content of the Great Panathenaia are abundant: To some extent the Parthenon frieze is consecrated to the depiction of several episodes of the festival’s procession, and an inscriptional catalog of prizes for the contests of the early fourth century b.c.e. has been found on the Acropolis. The Panathenaic Games, held during the large-scale festival, included solo and group contests. The athletic competition began with individual gymnastic activities, in which participants from all over the Greek world could take part: footraces (according to their distance they were called stadion, diaulos, dolichos, and hippios), wrestling, boxing, pancratium (a mixture of both boxing and wrestling), pentathlon (which included fi ve events: jump, stade race or dromos, discus throw, javelin throw, and wresting), four-horse and two-horse chariot races, javelin throwing from horseback, and apobatai (hoplites getting on and off moving chariots). Team contests were reserved to Athenian citizens and included a mock combat with cavalry (anthippasia), a beauty competition among athletes (euandrion), military dancing known as the pyrriche, and a regatta. In general, prizes for the winners consisted of amphoras fi lled with olive oil, since olive trees were especially sacred to the goddess Athena. The festival also included poetic and musical competition, open to participants from all over Greece. There was a rhapsodic contest on recitation of Homeric texts and other epic poetry, and several prizes were offered for the best singers and players of instrumental music (on the kithara and aulos). Once Pericles had built the Odeion, these activities are believed to have taken place there. In the evening a torch race (lampadephoria) was organized; the fi re was brought from the altar of Eros in the Academy, and a nocturnal celebration with dances and singing (pannychis) followed. The Panathenaic procession, which was organized the following day, was one of the most distinctive aspects of the festival, and its origin could perhaps date from the seventh century b.c.e. Every year a special robe (peplos) was woven and decorated, as a gift for Athena, by working maidens (ergastinai) carefully chosen from Athenian aristocratic families. Being selected to work on the cloth was an important civic honor. The parade (pompe) started early at the Dipylon Gate, in the northern part of the city, and walked through the Agora to the Acropolis into the Erechtheion, to fi nally place the new embroidered peplos, dyed in saffron, on a human-scale statue of Athena Polias. Maidens with head baskets (kanephoroi), the ergastinai, and several men from all ages and classes took part in the procession as well. Even metics (residents of Attica who were not properly citizens) joined the procession, serving as skaphephoroi and carrying offerings, such as cakes and honeycombs. However, they could not follow the whole parade up to the Acropolis, as they had to stay at the gateway, or propylaia. A large hecatomb was made afterward upon the altar of Athena, and meat from sacrifi ced cows and sheep was used in a ritual meal at the end of the festival. Attendance to the banquet was proportionally distributed on the basis of demes (local districts of Attica). As a whole the Panathenaic Festival was not only the celebration of a sacred cult but also a dynamic spectacle where the power of Athens was expressed and where the ideology of political supremacy was largely confi rmed. See also Greek city-states; Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric; gymnasium and athletics; Olympic Games. Further reading: Golden, M. Sport and Society in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Neils, J., ed. Goddess and Polis. The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992; ———, ed. Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996; Parke, H. W. Festivals of the Athenians. London: Thames and Hudson, 1977; Simon, E. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983. Emiliano J. Buis Parthenon The Parthenon was built in Athens, Greece, during the fi fth century b.c.e. to honor the city’s patron deity, Athena. Following the Persian War, which ended in 487 b.c.e., Athens was at the height of its power. Under the leadership of Pericles, the Athenians used war monies to begin building the Parthenon in 448 b.c.e. Architects Ictinus and Callicrates erected the temple atop the Parthenon 331 southern fl ank of the Acropolis, the central hill of the Greek city-state that was used for defensive and religious purposes, in 17 short years, completing the decorations by 432 b.c.e. Built of marble from Mount Pentelicus, the Parthenon is of post-and-lintel construction, block on block without mortar. A simple Greek temple plan comprises two back-to-back halls. The smaller inner hall (the opisthodomos) housed the treasury and temple rites, while the Parthenon’s larger main room (the cella) housed the statue of the goddess Athena. The short but wide cella is surrounded by a continuous wall of columns (the peristyle) that supports the upper elements of the structure between the tops of the columns and the roof (the entablature) on massive horizontal beams (the architrave). The cella also has a large front porch (the pronaos). The peristyle columns are of the Doric order. Doric columns are fl uted and are topped by plain square or rectangular slabs, without decorated bases. The massive Doric columns have an outward curvature in the middle. This swelling, or entasis, is an architectural refi nement used to correct the optical illusion from a distance that the column is disproportionately thinner in the middle than at the top and the bottom. Eight Doric columns spread across each end of the Parthenon, with 17 along each side, making the octastyle, peripteral building the largest of all Doric temples. A colossal polychrome ivory-and-gold cult statue of the goddess Athena Parthenos (Athena, Virgin) by sculptor Phidias (c. 490–c. 430 b.c.e.) stood in the cella. A twostory colonnade (pteron) of Doric columns supported a wooden roof above the statue. The roof of the smaller treasury hall was supported by four square-set Ionic columns, which are thinner and more delicate in scale, have decorative bases, and display ornamental scroll capitals (volutes). The architect Ictinus is credited with this innovative use of the Ionic order within the Doric order. The exterior sculptural decoration of the Parthenon consisted of the metopes, pediments, and the friezes. There were 92 metopes, rectangular panels fl anked by triglyphs, which are rectangular blocks containing sculptures in very high relief, above the outer colonnade. The pediments, triangular gables at the top of the front and back of the temple, bear fi gures almost in the round. The birth of Athena was placed on the east pediment, and on the west, Athena’s contest with the sea god Poseidon for the Athenian lands. The fi gure of Dionysus and the Three Goddesses from the east pediment are considered to be some of the fi nest extant examples of classical Greek sculpture. The frieze, a decorative sculpted band that runs horizontally along the Parthenon’s entablature for 525 feet, is found above the exterior temple walls and inside the outer colonnade. These contain low-relief sculptures, which were carved in place c. 442–438 b.c.e., of a Panathenaic procession. On the north, bas-relief horsemen are preparing to mount, water bearers carry hydra, and girls and stewards follow. In the central scene on the east side a priest and an attendant holding a peplos, the sacred robe presented to Athena during the Panathenaia, enact a ceremony. On either side of them, seated gods look on—Hermes, Dionysus, Demeter, and Ares on the left, and Poseidon, Apollo, and Artemis on the right. In 1806 Thomas Bruce, the seventh earl of Elgin, removed many of the Parthenon sculptures and deposited them in the British Museum. Many of the Parthenon’s original sculptures, hence called the “Elgin Marbles,” now reside in the Acropolis Museum, the British Museum’s Duveen Gallery, and the Louvre. The Parthenon existed as a temple to Athena until the fourth century c.e. During the fi fth century the cult statue of Athena was taken to Constantinople where it was destroyed during the Fourth Crusade. Since this time the Parthenon has been used as a Christian church and a mosque. In 1687 the southern side sustained considerable damage in an explosion due to the storage of gunpowder. In 1832 when Greece gained independence, all of the medieval and Ottoman additions were removed from the Parthenon, and it became a national historic precinct of the Greek government. After 1975 the Greeks began to restore the Acropolis, including the Parthenon, and to In the 1970s, the Greeks started restoration of the Parthenon, and created measures to protect the historic structure. 332 Parthenon create measures to protect the historic structure from tourist traffi c and environmental pollution. A full-scale replica of the Parthenon was built in downtown Nashville, Tennesee, in 1897 for the Centennial Exposition, and it houses a full-scale re-creation of the polychromed Athena Parthenos statue by sculptor Allen LeQuire. See also Athenian predemocracy; classical art and architecture, Greek; Greek mythology and pantheon; Persian invasions. Further reading: Beard, Mary. The Parthenon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003; Boardman, John. The Parthenon and Its Sculptures. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985; Carpenter, Rhys. The Architects of the Parthenon. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1970; Cook, B. F. The Elgin Marbles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997; Neils, Jenifer, ed. The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Alecia Harper Pataliputra Pataliputra (now Patna) is located at the confl uence of the Ganges and Son Rivers in northeastern India. It was the capital city of the Mauryan Empire c. 326–184 b.c.e., when it was perhaps the largest city in the world, and again of the Gupta Empire, 320–550 c.e. Alexander the Great invaded northwestern India in 326 b.c.e. The invasion had a catalytic effect in inspiring an Indian prince, Chandragupta Maurya, to form the fi rst empire on the subcontinent. Chandragupta might have met Alexander and, taking advantage of the latter’s death, drove the Greek forces out of India, subdued the tribes and states in northern India, and proclaimed himself ruler at Pataliputra, the capital of a previous local state. Chandragupta fought and then made peace with Seleucus Nicator, Alexander’s successor in Asia and founder of the Seleucid Empire, who sent an ambassador named Megasthenes to Pataliputra. Megasthenes kept a diary of his stay in India. The original account has not survived, but segments that were quoted in other ancient works give us the only fi rsthand information of Pataliputra. According to Megasthenes, a wooden wall nine miles long and a mile and a half wide surrounded Pataliputra, with 470 towers and a moat that was 900 feet wide. (Modern archaeologists have excavated some huge timbers that date to the Mauryan era.) Six fi ve-men boards in charge of industries, trade and commerce, tax collection, foreigners, vital statistics, and public works administered the city. Megasthenes also described Chandragupta’s lavish palaces, also built of wood. Nothing remains of the palace except fragments of highly polished columns. Between 250 and 240 b.c.e., Chandragupta’s grandson Emperor Ashoka (who had converted to Buddhism) convened the Third Buddhist Council at this city. The council dealt with growing dissension within Buddhism over interpretation of Gautama Buddha’s teachings and concluded with expelling the followers of the Great Vehicle, or Mahayana Buddhism, and the completion of the Tripitaka, or Buddhist canons. Pataliputra declined after the fall of the Mauryan Empire until the early fourth century c.e., when a man named Chandragupta (not related to the founder of the Mauryan Empire) unifi ed northern India and crowned himself Great King of Kings. He also made Pataliputra the capital of his dynasty (320–c. 550 c.e.). Another foreigner, a Chinese Buddhist pilgrim named Fa Xian (Fahsien) who traveled widely in India between 405 and 411 c.e., provided an account of the city under the Guptas. He described a great, opulent, and largely crime-free city. Religion fl ourished, with Buddhist temples and priests coexisting with Hinduism. He also recounted the hospitals in the capital city where the poor received free treatment. Another Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Xuan Zang (Hsuantsang) traveled to India during the early seventh century, studying, lecturing, and visiting Buddhist sites and writing extensively about his travels. He visited Pataliputra but recorded that little remained of that once glorious city. Earthquakes in the region, the hot climate, and the wooden construction of the structures have left little for archaeologists to retrieve from a once great city. See also Buddhist councils; Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Further reading: Majumdar, R. C., ed. The History and Culture of the Indian People, The Age of Imperial Unity. 2d ed. Bombay, India: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1953; Rapson, E. J., ed. The Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1, Ancient India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922; Nilakanta Sastri, K. A., ed. A Comprehensive History of India, Vol. 2, The Mauryas and Satavahana 325 B.C.–A.D. 300. Bombay, India: Orient Longmans, 1957. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Patriarchs, biblical Abraham begins the discussion of the Patriarchs and, indeed, of the three modern world religions. The record Patriarchs, biblical 333 of his life is found in the Jewish scriptures and is largely reaffi rmed in the New Testament of the Christians and assumed by the Qur’an. After Abraham the interpretation of the other biblical Patriarchs head in different directions, with the Jews and the Christians paying heed to Abraham’s second-born son, born of his wife Sarah, and the Muslims following the line of Ishmael (Arabic: Ismail), Abraham’s fi rst-born son, born of his female slave Hagar. The details of Abraham’s life in the Jewish Bible are sometimes sketchy, sometimes biographical. Abraham came from the Fertile Crescent, wandering from Ur to Harran (Carrhae), in the region of Edessa. His travels conform to known Amorite migratory patterns, and his lifestyle as a shepherd or trader also was consistent with the Mesopotamian world of the 20th–17th centuries b.c.e. He received a divine command to continue his journey farther into the far-fl ung corner of the Fertile Crescent, to the land of Canaan. He was promised many descendants and much land. Though the promises are repeated several times, the biblical narrative tells of Abraham’s frequent trials and travails, which ultimately prevent him from realizing the fulfi llment of the divine promise. First, as Abraham waited many years for a descendant to be born, he attempted to establish his own family line by selecting his chief servant to be heir. Then, after decades of waiting, he begot a son through his wife’s Egyptian servant—an ancient custom in Mesopotamia. This son was called Ishmael, and he is the one that Muslims revere as the beginning of the line leading to their prophet Muhammad. Only when Abraham had nearly reached the age of 100 did his elderly wife bear a son, whose name was Isaac, through whom the nation of Israel would fl ourish. Though Abraham had at least one other son by another woman, no others fi t into the divine promise. For Jews and for Muslims, it is only one son (either Ishmael or Isaac) upon whom the promise devolves. Second, as the only son of the divine promise grew older, the Hebrew God ordered Abraham to make a child sacrifi ce to him. Abraham dutifully obeyed, and was prevented at the last minute from executing his fatal sacrifi cial blow. The Jewish Bible names this son as Isaac, but the Qur’an says that he was Ishmael. Both the Jewish and Islamic faiths venerate the place where the human sacrifi ce would have occurred (for Jews, Jerusalem; for Muslims, Hira) as a site of pilgrimage or holy ground. Third, Abraham spent his life as a pilgrim and resident alien in the land of Canaan, owning no land though his promised expanse included the territories southwest of the Euphrates all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (modern- day Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine). When his wife died some 37 years after the birth of Isaac, he had nowhere to bury her in this “promised land,” until he negotiated for property from the local people. Though he was wealthy and respected, he died at age 175 without any land for his own burial, save his wife’s tomb. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all claim a share in Abraham’s life, but historians also take into account what holy books teach about Abraham. Some of the main issues include monotheism, pilgrimage, and chosen people and lands. Out of polytheistic Mesopotamia Abraham was called to worship one transcendent divinity not connected to nature—this is monotheism. He left his Fertile Crescent home, his family, and his ethnic identity—this is pilgrimage. He maintained his unique claim to a new land and ethnic identity—that he chose. And all three of these elements are pillars of each of the “Abrahamic” religions. Ishmael would have been the recipient of his father’s favor and wealth, as the fi rst-born. However, Isaac’s jealous mother drove him and his mother out of the camp. Nonetheless, the Bible gives a generally favorable impression of him: he was father of 12 sons, who were in turn the progenitors of 12 tribes—like the Patriarch of Israel, Jacob. He was present at his father’s burial. His ancestors are depicted as nomads and associated with Israel’s neighbors and therefore not recipients of Abraham’s divine promise. According to the New Testament, Isaac symbolizes that the divine promise is not by blood but by divine grace and sovereignty. Muslims reject this interpretation and see in the jealousy of Isaac’s mother her recognition that the promise is upon Ishmael. Isaac’s life was lived in the shadows of his father, Abraham, and his famous son Jacob. Only two later-life events are narrated: his marriage, arranged by his father, and his deathbed testament, manipulated by his son. One-quarter of Genesis focuses on Jacob, and there is much material that corroborates with what is known of the second millennium b.c.e. The picture of him is not altogether fl attering. He was born clutching his older brother’s heel, as if he was reluctant to let him be fi rst born. He manipulated his brother out of his inheritance, tricked his father out of his deathbed blessing, and struggled with a divine being to obtain his own ends. When he tried to barter for a wife in Mesopotamia, he tasted the bitterness of his own medicine as he was cheated out of work, wife, and time. Through his wives Jacob had 12 sons, all of whom became leaders of the 12 tribes of Israel. Before Jacob’s days ended he endured one more draught of the poison that he had brewed in his youthful days. His sons carried out a conspiracy to sell his favorite son into slavery and concealed it by blaming his disappearance on 334 Patriarchs, biblical wild animals. Only in his twilight years, after Jacob has been forced to leave the “promised land,” did he fi nd out that his favorite son was alive. From ancient Egypt Jacob delivered his fi nal speech, speaking of his implicit faith that he would be buried in Canaan. His speech is some of the oldest poetry in the Bible. The favorite son, sold as a slave to Egypt, was Joseph, the fi nal Patriarch of the Bible. Joseph’s story makes up 25 percent of Genesis, but he is rarely mentioned outside this book. Once Joseph is in Egypt he ascends to the highest offi ce in the land, steward to the pharaoh. From that position he is able to provide refuge for his starving family, who comes from Canaan to Egypt. Its literary role is to bring the Jewish salvation history to Egypt, where Moses will arise and lead the people out of Egypt. Yet the story also has a religious message: Repentance and forgiveness can save even the most dysfunctional and divided family. See also Christianity, early; Egypt, culture and religion; Judaism, early (heterodoxies). Further reading: Fox, E. The Five Books of the Moses: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes. New York: Schocken Books, 1995; Wright, Addison G., Roland E. Murphy, Joseph A. Fitzmyer. “A History of Israel.” In New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. Mark F. Whitters patricians The society of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire was made up of several levels. At the top were the patrician classes of senator and equestrian. The commoner classes of plebeians, freed peoples, and slaves had fewer opportunities in life. However, these social and political classes maintained order and structure in Roman culture. They created the fi rst socially mobile culture in history. The Roman emperor held the title of princeps senatus (chief senator) and could appoint new senators, preside over the Senate, and propose new legislation. The real power of the Senate was in its judicial functions, mainly its right to crown the new emperor. Senators were considered a political class of citizen. The Senate was made up of 600 men who were either the sons of senators or Roman citizens over the age of 25 with military and administrative experience. The senate class included all men who served in the Senate and their families. These were mostly nobles or families whose ancestors included at least one elected consul. The fi rst male in each family elected to the position of consul was given the title novus homo, meaning “new man.” In order to be considered a senator a Roman citizen had to accumulate 1 million sesterces of wealth and property. Senators were granted special privileges, priority seating at sporting events and theater productions, and the right to hold the highest judicial offi ces. Senators wore a gold senatorial ring and a tunica clava with a fi ve-inch-wide purple stripe on the right shoulder. Children of these patricians often had private tutors to educate them. They even had their own bedrooms, toys, and slaves. Families of senators usually had two homes, one in the city for business and one in the countryside for leisure, run by slaves. These homes usually had comforts such as running water, sewage, luxury furniture, and private baths. Wealthy patricians would display gold drinking and eating vessels as well as intricate mosaics decorating the walls. They would entertain political and social guests at large banquets, often accompanied by music and dancing. Despite these privileges senators had several restrictions placed on them. Serving the republic or the empire earned them no salary. They could not personally engage in nonagricultural businesses. They were also forbidden to practice trade or bid on public contracts. Equestrians were the lower social group among the patricians. The basis for this class was economic in nature. A citizen had to possess 400,000 sesterces of wealth during the rule of Augustus Caesar to become an equestrian. Emperor Augustus reorganized this social class into a military class. Equestrians were the “knights” of the Roman Empire’s cavalry and were granted a “public horse” with which to defend Rome. Equestrians were either landed plebeians or the sons of senators who had not yet entered the quaestorship at 25 years of age. Citizens of this class also had special privileges that even the senators did not have: They were allowed to be merchants and commercial traders. Equestrians held civilservice jobs such as tax collector, banker, exporter, and administrator of public contracts. They displayed their rank on a white tunic with a one-inch-wide purple stripe over the right shoulder (the angusti clavi). Equestrians rarely became senators. Plebeians were the lowest class of free citizens. They were the working class of Rome and the main taxpayers. Most jobs were hereditary, and they usually worked as subsistence farmers or as sharecroppers of wealthy patricians. They could also be bakers, artisans, masons, or carpenters. None of these occupations paid very well, and most plebeians struggled to provide for their family. patricians 335 Plebeians usually lived in apartment homes called insulae. These homes were usually built of wood and were extremely susceptible to fi re since running water was not available. As the insulae were without kitchens, families would purchase meals consisting of coarse bread, bean or pea soup, porridge, and, if the family saved enough, chicken or rabbit once a month. Plebeians lived in very unsanitary conditions: Two families often shared oneroom apartments, and chamber pots were often emptied out into the street below. There were very few ways for a plebeian to advance socially. The fi rst was to save enough sesterces to become an equestrian. Another way to advance was to be adopted by a patrician family. Plebeians could earn equestrian titles by achieving any of the three highest military awards: Coronae Graminea, Civica, or Aurea. The fi nal opportunity for social advancement was in politics. Plebeians could seek election as a tribune of the plebs. He was elected by the Assembly of the Citizens and was the only plebeian allowed to participate in Senate meetings. After a six-month term, tribunes automatically became a member of the Senate and the equestrian order. Roman social and political classes provided the world with new concepts of citizenship. These concepts included placing limitations on the upper class as well as opportunities for the lower classes to advance themselves. They revolutionized the way the Western world looked at society. See also Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: government. Further reading: Guy, John. Roman Life. New York: Scholastic, 1998; Simpson, J., et al. Ancient Rome. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1997. George Derr Patrick (c. 390–461 c.e.) Christian leader The folklore surrounding St. Patrick is bigger than life, out of proportion to the modest historical information we have. But it is not so outlandish in comparison to the impact he had on Ireland. Patrick began his mission precisely at the time that Celtic spirituality was coming out of the shadows of the Roman Empire and the Western Latin Church. Patrick was born in Britain as Roman imperial order waned. He was kidnapped by Irish pirates at the age of 15 and sent to Ireland as a slave for six years. Most likely during this period Patrick developed a rapport with his captors and learned their native Gaelic language. Though he was born into a Christian and Romanized family, he was not particularly religious until his imprisonment. He began to pray and had some kind of religious experience, an assurance that he would be delivered. He was converted in Ireland. He escaped from his captors, returned to his homeland, and began studies for the priesthood. It is not certain where he did his studies, but he might have traveled to Gaul where he read and wrote in Latin and learned the particulars of the monastic life. There he had another religious experience, a dream, which confi rmed for him that he was to return to Ireland as a missionary. Perhaps as early as 432 c.e. the pope commissioned Patrick as bishop to spread Christianity among the Irish people. He resolutely set off for this remote and dangerous island, never to return to the Romanized world. He probably worked in the northern parts of the island, leaving the south, where there were pockets of Christianity, to the fi rst bishop of Ireland, Palladius. He spent his time consulting and conciliating among local Irish chieftains, educating their sons, preaching among the Celtic peoples, and eventually institutionalizing the Irish church through native ordinations and the establishment of monasteries. For more than 30 years his work was diffi cult and exhausting. He was not as inclined to scholarship and writing as he was to hard work and prayer. Thus, he left behind only two compositions: Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, a piece that criticizes the British military authorities for their harsh treatment of Celtic Christians, and Confession, an autobiographical apologia for his life and mission. The popular stories of miracles involving snakes and shamrocks are the stuff of medieval legends. His writings mentioned above show that Patrick was a devoted and prayerful pastor of his Irish fl ock, yet conscious of the need to submit to the mainline Latin Church. His creeds and doctrines were most likely quite conventional. Nonetheless, he also allowed for the indigenous church to develop its own monastic forms, and Irish abbots and monasteries soon assumed their dominant position that typifi ed Celtic spirituality. The Western Church celebrates his feast day on March 17. See also Brendan the Navigator; Celts; monasticism. Further reading: Bieler, Ludwig, and Richard Sharpe, eds. Studies on the Life and Legend of St. Patrick. London: Ashgate Publishing, 1985; Freeman, Philip. St. Patrick of Ireland. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005. Mark F. Whitters 336 Patrick Paul (1st century c.e.) religious leader Paul has had an immense infl uence on Christianity in particular and Western civilization in general. Among those who were infl uenced by Paul are Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Wesley. Paul’s letters, written between 51 and 59 c.e., are the most important sources of information about him. The New Testament contains 13 letters bearing his name. Of these, nine are written to churches (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians), and four are written to individuals (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon). Scholars dispute the genuineness of six of these letters (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians). Church tradition also included Hebrews among Paul’s letters, but scholars today almost universally reject Paul as its author. Another important source of information about Paul is Acts of the Apostles. Paul was born to a Jewish family in Tarsus of Cilicia (southern Turkey) around the turn of the fi rst century c.e. In those days Tarsus was the third most important educational center in the Roman Empire, after Athens and Rome. It was also a cosmopolitan port city that became home to rich crosscurrents of cultures and ideas. Paul was a Roman citizen by birth and had at least a secondary education in Greek. According to Acts, he studied in Jerusalem under a renowned rabbi named Gamaliel. He was also a persecutor of the church. Sometime in the early 30s c.e., as he made a journey toward Damascus in Syria to apprehend followers of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth, he experienced a dramatic conversion when the resurrected Jesus appeared to him in a vision and told him to bring the good news of his resurrection— called “the gospel”—to the Gentiles. Paul never met Jesus in real life, and some of his contemporaries challenged his claim to be an apostle. Notwithstanding, between 50 and 60 c.e. he emerged as the most infl uential (albeit controversial) and widely traveled spokesperson of the gospel in primitive Christianity. Paul became the primitive church’s most successful missionary to the Gentiles. In fact, Christianity owes its basic Gentile character to Paul’s mission. He conducted aggressive missionary campaigns throughout the area that is now Syria, Turkey, and Greece. The focal point of controversy in his missionary activity and several of his letters was circumcision. He rejected circumcision (along with “the works of the law”) and insisted that faith in Christ is suffi cient for salvation and admission to the Christian community. Paul worked in major cities of the empire. For example, Corinth and Philippi were Roman colonies where military veterans settled with privileges. Colonies were the highest-ranking cities of the empire, each being a miniature Rome. Paul delivered his gospel to the heart of the Roman political system, hoping to spread it throughout the empire. He succeeded beyond his wildest imagination. Paul’s letters abound with imagery taken from the Roman games and military. In addition, like the Roman writer Cicero, Paul selected and synthesized materials from diverse sources. This practice (called eclecticism) helped him appeal to a wide audience. Paul was the most able theologian of the primitive church. First, he argued that humans are saved by faith in God’s free grace that was revealed in the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth (known as the Christ event). Paul’s second argument was that every person deserves to be treated with equality and dignity, regardless of race, social rank, or gender, because he or she is a redeemed creature of God. His third and most important argument was that Jesus Christ, as the crucifi ed one, fulfi lls all the promises in the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament). Other New Testament writers also held similar views, but only Paul was able to articulate their complex reasoning. Paul’s theology is a blend of Judaism and Hellenism. As a faithful Jew, Paul accepted the Jewish scriptures as the revelation of God. Paul quoted mostly from the Greek translation of these scriptures, the Septuagint (or LXX), which was widely used by the Greek-speaking Jews. He also made Jewish monotheism a foundational assumption of his theology. However, Paul differed from later Jewish sources mainly in his approach to the Torah (the Law of Moses). These rabbinic sources were written at least a century after Paul and represent modifi cations made to Judaism after the fall of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 c.e. Paul built his theology mostly on the narrative portions of the Torah, such as the creation, Adam’s fall, and Abraham’s experiences. In contrast, the later rabbinic sources focused primarily on the legal portions of the Torah, such as the laws of purity. Paul’s writings also exhibit Hellenistic characteristics. He wrote in Greek, using Hellenistic rhetorical devices. Also, his moral exhortations resemble the ethical teachings of the Stoics and Cynics. Like these Hellenistic philosophical schools, Paul highlighted the importance of self-control through lists of virtues and vices and household codes of ethics (Haustafeln). Moreover, many scholars feel that Paul’s teachings about Christ’s death and resurrection resemble the myths attached to Hellenistic mystery cults. Whatever may be the case, Paul 337 Paul’s immense infl uence ultimately came from his extensive missionary work among the Gentiles and his powerful ideas about God’s transforming grace. Paul eventually went to Rome as a prisoner and died there as a martyr in the early 60s c.e. under Nero. See also Hellenization; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Mishnah; persecutions of the church; Roman Empire; Rome: government; Stoicism; Zakkai, Yohanan ben. Further reading: Duling, Dennis C. The New Testament: History, Literature, and Social Context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson, 2003; Sanders, E. P. Paul. Past Masters. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991; Stewart, S. James. A Man in Christ: The Vital Elements of St. Paul’s Religion. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930. P. Richard Choi Pax Romana Pax Romana, two Latin words meaning “Roman peace,” refers to the historical period between 27 b.c.e. and 180 c.e. Unlike former times, it was a long period of relative peace, although Rome still fought a number of wars against neighboring states and tribes. The arts and architecture fl ourished, along with commerce, the economy, and political stability. The 200-year Pax Romana period consisted of four ages: the Augustus age (31 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), the Julio- Claudian dynasty age (14–69 c.e.), the Flavian dynasty age (69–96 c.e.), and the Five Good Emperors age (96– 180 c.e.). AGE OF AUGUSTUS, OR THE PRINCIPATE In 44 b.c.e. several members of the Roman Senate assassinated one of the greatest Roman rulers, Julius Caesar. This was just one month after he had declared himself dictator of the Roman world, abolishing the Roman Republic. Before his death Julius Caesar and two men, Gaius Cassius and Pompey, had formed the First Triumvirate, which did not have offi cial support and did not rule. Later, Octavian, who was Julius’s Caesar great-nephew and adopted son, learned that Marcus Junius Brutus and Cassius, one of the members of the First Triumvirate, were guilty of assassinating Julius Caesar. Octavian, together with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, who were Caesar’s principal colleagues, formed the Second Triumvirate in 43 b.c.e. As years went by, political and personal differences grew between Antony and Octavian. Antony married Octavian’s sister but then abandoned her to be with Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, with whom he had three children. Meanwhile, Octavian built a network of allies in Rome and spread propaganda that Antony was becoming less than Roman because of his preoccupation with Egyptian affairs and traditions. These tensions fi - nally resulted in a military confl ict decided at the Battle of Actium, where Antony was defeated. Octavian emerged as the sole master of the Roman world. In January 27 b.c.e. Octavian appeared before the Roman Senate and laid down his military supremacy over Egypt, which created the First Settlement between him and the Senate. Augustus closed the Temple of Janus for the fi rst time in 200 years as a sign that peace had fi nally returned to the empire. Besides giving him authority over the western half of the empire, the Senate also gave him the title augustus, an honorifi c title meaning majestic, and princeps, meaning fi rst citizen among equals. According to the new Augustus, with his mandate, the Republic had been restored. Augustus’s main achievement was to set up an empire that was able to maintain a peace for many centuries. Augustus Caesar initiated a public works program that gave citizens jobs and increased his popularity among the people of Rome. Since access to the provinces was essential for control, Augustus made sure that the roads were kept in repair and in some cases rebuilt. He replaced the facades of many temples and state buildings with marble, completed many buildings that had been started by Julius Caesar, and built many new buildings on his own. Among these was the Forum of Augustus, including the temple of Mars Ultor. Augustus’s interests lay in the administration and management of government. To this end he revised the layout of the city by dividing the metropolis into 14 regiones, or wards, with more than 250 precincts, and extended the limits of the pomerium (the sacred boundary of the city). He appointed a board of curatores to help oversee the maintenance of public buildings, roads, and the water supply. An element that was key to his administration, as well as that of future emperors, was the development of the Praetorian Guard, the elite military unit of the Roman Empire. It was the only legion allowed in Rome and served not only as the police force for the city of Rome but the police force for the country of Italy as well. Augustus used religion to reorganize the state and to establish his own rule. He assumed the title of pontifex maximus (head priest) and revived old religious traditions like the Lupercalia festival to further associ- 338 Pax Romana ate the emperor with the state cult. He also promoted the cult of emperor as divine by building a temple to the Divine Julius. His views on morality extended to laws regarding adultery, unchastity, and bribery. During Augustus’s age the empire developed an effi - cient postal service, fostered free trade among the provinces, and built many bridges, aqueducts, and buildings adorned with works of art created in the classical style. Literature fl ourished, with writers including Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and Livy all living under the emperor’s patronage. AGE OF THE JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY During this age Rome reached the height of its power and wealth; it may be seen as the golden age of Roman literature and arts, but it was also a period of imperial extravagance and notoriety. The Julio-Claudians were Roman nobles with an impressive ancestry, but their fondness for the ideals and lifestyle of the old aristocracy created confl icts of interest and duty. The dynasty is so named from the nomina, or family names, of its fi rst two emperors: Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus and Tiberius Claudius Nero. Octavianus was a descendant from the gens Julia (the Julian family), while Tiberius was a scion of the gens Claudia. When Augustus died leaving no sons, his stepson Tiberius succeeded him. Tiberius’s government ruled from 14 to 37 c.e. and was the fi rst of the Julio-Claudian emperors. His early years were peaceful, securing for Tiberius the power of Rome and enriching its treasury. However, with time, having been blamed for the death of his nephew Germanicus, Tiberius began a series of treason trials, executions, and persecutions against those he believed to be traitors. Tiberius entered into a state of paranoia that lasted until his death in 37 c.e. At the time of Tiberius’s death most who might have succeeded him had been brutally murdered. The logical successor (and Tiberius’s own choice) was his grandnephew, Germanicus’s son Gaius (better known as Caligula) who seized power in 37. Caligula may have suffered from epilepsy and was probably insane, ordering many absurd actions. In 41 the commander of the guard Cassius Chaerea assassinated Caligula. The only member of the imperial family left to take charge was his uncle, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus. Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, or Claudius, began his rule in 41. Unlike his uncle Tiberius or his nephew Caligula, Claudius was skilled at administering the empire’s affairs. He improved the bureaucracy and led the citizenship and senatorial rolls. Claudius’s main achievement was to encourage the conquest and colonization of Britain and eastern provinces into the empire. He also ordered the construction of a winter port for Rome, at Ostia, thereby providing a place for grain from other parts of the empire to be brought in inclement weather. Rome prospered during the reign of Claudius. He engaged in a vast program of public works, including aqueducts, canals, and the development of Ostia as the port of Rome. Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, whose son Lucius Domitius Nero, better known as Nero, became his successor at only 16 years of age, after the death of Claudius in 54. At fi rst Nero left the rule of Rome to his mother and his tutors but became more ambitious and had his mother and tutors executed. Under Nero’s rule, the frontiers of the empire were successfully defended and even extended. Nero was a patron of the arts; his coins and imperial inscriptions are among the fi nest ever produced in Rome. After a great fi re destroyed half of Rome in 64 he spent huge sums on rebuilding the city and a vast new imperial palace, the so-called Domus Aurea, or Golden House, whose architectural forms were as innovative as they were extravagant. Nero antagonized the upper class, confi scating large private estates in Italy and putting many leading fi gures to death. His tendency toward despotism, as well as his failure to keep the loyalty of the Roman legions, led to civil strife and opposition to his reign. Nero committed suicide in 69, a year of civil war known as the Year of the Four Emperors, with Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian ruling as emperors in quick succession. Nero was the last emperor of the Julio- Claudian dynasty. AGE OF THE FLAVIAN DYNASTY The Flavians, although a relatively short-lived dynasty, helped restore stability to a declining empire. The reforms and rule of the three Flavian emperors helped create a stable empire that would last well into the third century c.e. However, their background as a military dynasty led to further irrelevancy of the Senate, and the move from princeps, or “fi rst citizen,” to imperator, or “emperor,” was fi nalized during their reign. Seizing power at the age of 60, Vespasian became emperor in 69 c.e. Vespasian increased the number of senators from 200 to 1,000, most of the new senators coming not from Rome but from Italy and urban centers within the western provinces. Vespasian liberated Rome from the fi nancial burdens placed upon it by Nero’s excesses and the civil wars. To do this he not only increased taxes but created new forms of taxation. It was he who fi rst commissioned the Roman Colosseum (Flavian Pax Romana 339 Amphitheater). In addition, he allotted sizable subsidies to the arts. Perhaps the most important military reform he undertook was the extension of legion recruitment from exclusively Italy to Gaul and Spain, in line with the Romanization of those areas. He ruled until 79. After Vespasian’s death, his eldest son, Titus—who had served as a general under his father—seized power in 79. He quickly proved his merit, even recalling many exiled by his father as a show of good faith. However, his short reign was marked by disaster: In 79 Mount Vesuvius erupted in Pompeii, and in 80 a fi re destroyed much of Rome’s population. His generosity in rebuilding after these tragedies made him very popular. Titus died of an unknown illness and was succeeded by his younger brother, Titus Flavius Domitianus, or Domitian, in 81. After a series of catastrophes in Rome (the great fi res of 64 and 80 c.e., and the civil wars of 68– 69 c.e.), Domitian erected, restored, or completed more than 50 public buildings. As an administrator, Domitian soon proved to be a disaster. The economy came to a halt and then went into recession, forcing him to heavily devaluate the denarius (silver currency of the Roman Empire). Taxes were raised and discontent soon followed. Domitian’s greatest passions were the arts and the games. He fi nished the Colosseum, started by his father, and implemented the Capitoline Games in 86. Like the Olympic Games, they were to be held every four years, including athletic displays and chariot races, but they also included oratory, music, and acting competitions. He was also very fond of gladiator shows and added important innovations like female and dwarf gladiator fi ghts. In 85 Domitian made himself censor perpetuus, “censor for life,” and thus took charge of the conduct and morals of Rome. He was not much of a military fi gure, and his campaigns were minor at best. In 96 he was murdered in a palace coup. That same day Nerva succeeded Domitian. His reputation in the Senate aside, he kept the people of Rome happy through various measures, including donations to every resident of Rome, wild spectacles in the newly fi nished Colosseum, and continuing the public works projects of his father and brother. He had the good fi scal sense of his father, because although he spent lavishly, his successors came to power with a well-endowed treasury. He was murdered in 96, closing the Flavian dynasty age. AGE OF THE FIVE GOOD EMPERORS With Domitian’s death began what 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon called the Age of the Five Good Emperors, a long period that lasted from year 96 until 180 c.e. The succession was peaceful, though not dynastic, and the empire was prosperous. Under the Five Good Emperors the frontiers of the empire were consolidated to the north and to the east. Under Emperor Trajan the empire’s borders briefl y achieved their maximum extension, with provinces created in Mesopotamia in 117 c.e. The bureaucracy was opened up to all social classes, trade and agriculture fl ourished, and there was much public building. Although things did seem to be getting better, there were problems on the horizon. Barbarian pressures were mounting. There was a considerable decline in the slave population, and the army was no longer large enough to maintain the frontier. As a result, Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the last of the Five Great Emperors, spent most of his time defending the frontier and spent very little time in Rome. Following his death in 180, the imperial offi ce passed to his 19-year-old son, another Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus. The fi rst of the Five Good Emperors was Marcus Cocceius Nerva, also known as Nerva, who became Roman emperor in 96 and had a short ruling period until 98. He released those imprisoned for treason, banned future prosecutions for treason, restored much confi scated property, and involved the Roman Senate in his rule. He probably did so as a means to remain relatively popular (and therefore alive), but this did not completely aid him. In October 97 the Praetorian Guard laid siege to the Imperial Palace on the Palatine Hill and took Nerva hostage. Nerva then adopted Trajan, a commander of the armies on the German frontier, as his successor shortly thereafter in order to bolster his own rule. After Nerva’s death, in 98 Marcus Ulpius Traianius, or Trajan, became the second good Roman emperor. Trajan was different from other emperors, being from Seville, in Spain. During his military career Trajan had won distinction in the Parthian, German, and Dacian campaigns. He spent most of his time away from Rome in military campaigns. As a result, in 177 the Roman Empire reached its maximum territorial extent ever. His internal administration was sound, and he kept up a policy of public works across the empire. Perhaps the most ambitious military man since Julius Caesar, Trajan suffered a stroke and died in 117. Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus, also known as Hadrian, was Trajan’s successor. Despite his excellence as a military administrator, Hadrian’s reign was marked by a lack of major military confl icts. He surrendered Trajan’s conquests in Mesopotamia, considering them to be indefensible. There was almost a war with Parthia around 121, but the threat was averted when Hadrian succeeded in negotiating a peace. His only military vic- 340 Pax Romana tory was obtained in Judaea when his army crushed a massive Jewish uprising in 132–135 c.e. Hadrian’s policies were defensive, the most famous of these being the massive Hadrian’s Wall in Britain. The Danube and Rhine borders were strengthened with a series of mostly wooden fortifi cations, forts, outposts, and watchtowers, the latter improving communications and local area security. To maintain troop morale, Hadrian established intensive drill routines, and personally inspected the armies. Hadrian also patronized the arts: Hadrian’s Villa at Tibur (Tivoli) was the greatest Roman example of an Alexandrian garden. In Rome the Pantheon built by Agrippa was enriched under Hadrian and took the form in which it remains to this day. Hadrian was famous for his love relationship with a Greek youth, Antinoüs. While touring Egypt, Antinoüs mysteriously drowned in the Nile in 130. In his honor, Hadrian founded the Egyptian city of Antinopolis. Hadrian drew the whole empire into his mourning, making Antinoüs the last new god of antiquity. Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus Pius, or Pius, followed Hadrian. His governing period spanned from 138 to 161. He built temples, theaters, and mausoleums, promoted the arts and sciences, and rewarded teachers of rhetoric and philosophy. His reign was comparatively peaceful; there were several military disturbances throughout the empire in his time, but none was serious Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, better known as Marcus Aurelius, followed Pius and became the fi fth and last of the Five Good Emperors. Aurelius was Pius’s nephew and adopted son. Marcus Aurelius was almost constantly at war. Germanic tribes and others launched many raids along the long European border. Marcus Aurelius sent Verus to command the legions in the east. Verus could command the full loyalty of the troops but was also powerful enough to have little incentive to overthrow Marcus. This plan succeeded, and commander Verus remained loyal until his death on campaign in 169. Marcus Aurelius probably sent out the fi rst of several Roman embassies to China. Aurelius died in 180. Marcus Aurelius’s successor, Commodus, was a political and military outsider, as well as an extreme egotist. Many historians believe that the decline of Rome began under Commodus. For this reason Aurelius’s death is often held to have been the end of the Pax Romana. See also Roman historians; Roman pantheon and myth; Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: decline and fall; Rome: founding; Rome: government. Further reading: Amey, Peter. Pax Romana. St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven Press, 1980; Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Bonanza Books, 1985; Kagan, David. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Why Did It Collapse? Boston: Heath, 1962; Petit, Paul. Pax Romana. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976; Shotter, D. C. A. Rome and Her Empire. New York: Longman, 2003. Diego I. Murguía Peisistratus (c. 605–527 b.c.e.) Athenian leader Peisistratus (Pisistratus) was tyrant of Athens and led the drive for the unifi cation of Attica, which enabled the city-state to achieve an eminent position in Greek history. Peisistratus was related to the reformer Solon, whose previous administrative improvements involved ending the monopoly of power exercised by the aristocracy and the implementation of a less savage code of law. Peisistratus would ultimately build on the work of Solon and move Athens toward a state run by plural political and economic interests. He was seemingly not averse to theatrical stunts to entertain and sway the masses, from whom he appears to have received a considerable level of support. This was particularly true of the rural and poorer people, whose support he eventually rewarded with the granting of land loans. Although political monopoly had been ended, different factions led by aristocratic families contended for power. Two in particular were infl uential: the Coast of Megacles and the Plain of Lycurgus. Peisistratus organized his own faction, the Hills, based on his native eastern part of Attica, and sought the support of Megacles by marrying one of his daughters. He managed briefl y to unite enough lesser interests to seize power in 560 b.c.e. and govern from the Acropolis. However, this was briefl y held, and his life was interspersed with periods of warfare, exile, and hardship. During exile in northern Greece, he gained control of silver mines and obtained support from factions on Naxos, in Thebes, and on the island of Euboea. This enabled him to mobilize an army with which he invaded Attica and conquered Athens, attacking while his enemy was asleep. This time his ownership of power was much lengthier, and he was able to cement his position until his death, after which his sons Hippias and Hipparchus succeeded him. Peisistratus supported religion and the arts, and various cultural institutions fl ourished during his period of Peisistratus 341 infl uence. It is inaccurate to characterize Athens as being a democracy in the modern sense, but under Peisistratus some democratic elements were preserved and strengthened. The economy was also improved, and coinage was introduced during this period. His life and times are recorded in the Histories of Herodotus, which show him to be a man of resolve and resource. See also Athenian predemocracy; Greek citystates. Further reading: Andrewes, A. “The Tyranny of Pisistratus.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; Cartledge, Paul, ed. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Herodotus. The Histories. Trans. by Aubrey de Selincourt. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003; Pomeroy, Sarah B., et al. A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. John Walsh Peloponnesian War The Peloponnesian War was a Greek confl ict fought by the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta, and the Athenian Empire. The war lasted 27 years, from 431 to 404 b.c.e., with a six-year truce in the middle, and ended with an Athenian surrender. The war involved much of the Mediterranean world, and large-scale campaigns and intense fi ghting took place from the coast of Asia Minor to Sicily and from the Hellespont and Thrace to Rhodes. The confl ict is often viewed as an archetypal case of warfare between a commercial democracy and an agricultural aristocracy and of warfare between maritime and continental superpowers. Thucydides, an Athenian general and historian, documented the events of the confl ict in his History of the Peloponnesian War. It was, consequently, the fi rst war in history to be recorded by an eyewitness and talented historian. Historians posit multiple causes for the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides argued that the underlying cause of the war was Sparta’s fear of growing Athenian power during the fi fth century b.c.e. This perspective is supported by the well-documented rise and power of Athens in the 50 years prior to the outbreak of the war. After a coalition of Greek cities, which included both Athens and Sparta, defeated a Persian invasion of Greece, several of these states formed a more formal coalition called the Delian League in 478 b.c.e. The purpose of the league was to enhance economic ties and establish a navy to deter further Persian aggression. Athens was afforded leadership of the league, which gave it control over the league’s treasury. Through a series of political maneuvers by Athens in the decades following the creation of the league, the coalition was transformed into an Athenian-dominated empire. After 445 b.c.e. the Athenian leader Pericles began consolidating Athenian resources and expanded the Athenian navy to such an extent that its power was without equal in Greece. In 433 b.c.e. Pericles forged an alliance with another strong naval power, Corcyra, which was the chief rival of Sparta’s ally Corinth. These actions greatly enhanced Athenian power and, conversely, weakened the power of other Greek cities, particularly those who were members of Sparta’s Peloponnesian League. Athenian naval dominance allowed them to control virtually all sea trade, which threatened the supply of food from Sicily to cities in the Peloponnese, including Sparta. Furthermore, Athens boycotted cities that resisted its growing power, including Sparta’s ally Megara. It was on these grounds that Corinth demanded that Sparta take up arms against the Athenian empire. The appeal was backed by Megara—nearly ruined by Pericles’s economic boycott—and by Aegina, a reluctant member of the Athenian Empire. The actual outbreak of fi ghting in 431 b.c.e. sprung from Sparta’s desire to capitalize on a moment of Athenian weakness. The city of Potidaea, a subject member of the Athenian empire, revolted in the spring of 432 b.c.e. The rebel city held out until the winter of 430 b.c.e. and its blockade by Athens meant a constant drain on Athenian naval and military resources. Sparta’s leaders were so confi dent of a quick and easy victory over Athens that they refused an offer of arbitration made by Pericles. Instead, Sparta issued an ultimatum that would have practically destroyed Athens’s imperial power. Pericles urged his people to refuse, and Sparta declared war. Hostilities began in 431 b.c.e. with a Theban attack on Athens’s ally, Platea, and 80 days later by a Peloponnesian invasion of Attica. Now capable of invading Attica through the Megarid, Sparta did so numerous times through 425 b.c.e. Sparta only curtailed these attacks when Athens captured a number of Spartan hoplites and held them hostage. At fi rst, on Pericles’ advice, the Athenians employed a defensive strategy, taking refuge inside the walls surrounding the city and the port of Piraeus, and limiting offensive operations to brief cavalry missions, raids into the Peloponnese, and a series of invasions of the Megarid. 342 Peloponnesian War However, following Pericles’ death in 429 b.c.e. and the failed Mytilenean revolt in 427 b.c.e., Athens adopted a more offensive strategy. This included establishing bases on the Peloponnesian coast. Athens also attempted to force Boeotia’s surrender through a pair of elaborate invasions, the second of which ended in a stunning defeat at Delium in 424 b.c.e. The Spartans marched overland to Chalcidice and, through persuasion and threats, convinced a number of Athens’s allies to join the Spartan cause. Brasidas’s own death in battle outside Amphipolis in 422 b.c.e. and that of the Athenian demagogue Cleon led to the conclusion of a temporary peace. The peace was unsatisfactory to many of Sparta’s allies, and the Athenian Alcibiades created an anti- Spartan coalition in the Peloponnese. At the Battle of Mantineia in 418 b.c.e. the Spartans were victorious. With Sparta’s position in the Peloponnese once more secure, Alcibiades turned elsewhere for a fi eld in which to exercise his talents, and in 415 b.c.e. Athens sent an expedition to Sicily, where he served as one of three commanders. Historians believe it was either a preemptive strike to prevent Syracuse from conquering the island and providing military aid to the Spartan-led coalition in the Peloponnese, or simply to bolster a long-held Athenian interest in the island. Regardless, the expedition ended in disaster in 413 b.c.e. During the siege Alcibiades was recalled to Athens to face charges of sacrilege but fl ed to Sparta rather than stand trial. In the meantime, mainland Greece had once more slipped into open warfare. The Athenians raided the Peloponnese, while the Spartans invaded Attica in 413 b.c.e. and seized a strategically important base at Decelea in the foothills north of Athens. However, the loss of so many Athenian ships and trained crews in Sicily changed the nature of the war. The Spartans understood that the way to defeat Athens at sea was to win control of the Hellespont and Propontis, thus choking off essential supplies to the struggling city. By 411 b.c.e. the confl ict became increasingly focused on that area of Greece. Athens was hampered by internal problems, culminating in the overthrow of the democracy in June 411 b.c.e. The oligarchs who seized power were unable to reconcile the Athenian fl eet at Samos to their rule, and in September they were overthrown. Initially, only a limited form of democracy was restored, but the victory near Cyzicus in 410 b.c.e. led to the restoration of the old system. Alcibiades returned to Athens by way of Persia, and was elected once again as commander of the Athenian forces. He arrived in time to take part in the victory off Abydos and another near Cyzicus the subsequent year. Following additional success in the north, such as the recovery of Byzantium in 408 b.c.e., Alcibiades returned to Athens in triumph in 407 b.c.e. and was awarded supreme command of the Athenian navy on the west coast of Asia Minor. Lysander successfully attacked one of Alcibiades’ subordinates while the Athenian commander was absent. The furious Athenians dismissed Alcibiades, who fl ed to Thrace. Lysander ultimately achieved a victory at Aegospotami in 405 b.c.e. As a result, while Athens valiantly held out until the spring of 404 b.c.e., it succumbed to economic starvation imposed by overwhelming Spartan forces and surrendered. Ultimately, despite some daring strategies, the Peloponnesian War was a war of resources. The Spartans were victorious because Persian gold enabled them to build more ships and to purchase more mercenaries than Athens could. However, Sparta also understood from the outset that Athens, as a maritime power that depended on port trade, would have to be defeated at sea. Conversely, the Athenians do not appear to have understood that Sparta, as a land power, could only be defeated on land. See also Greek city-states; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon; Persian invasions. Further reading: Hanson, Victor Davis. A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 2005; ———. The Wars of the Ancient Greeks. London: Cassell, 1999; Kagan, Donald. The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969; ———. The Peloponnesian War. New York: Penguin Group, 2003; Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1993; Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. New York: Penguin Books, 1972. Scott Fitzsimmons Pericles (495–429 b.c.e.) Athenian politician Pericles was the most important statesman and politician of classical Athens. He was a son of Xanthippus, a Persian War–era general and politician, and Agariste of the prominent but allegedly cursed Alcmaeonids. The rationalist philosopher, Anaxagoras, intellectually infl uenced him. He was a friend of the sculptor, Phidias, to whom he entrusted supervision of the construction of the Parthenon. Pericles 343 The two most important ancient sources for Pericles’ life are the historian Thucydides, who admired him and focused his account in the History of the Peloponnesian War on Pericles’ intellectual prowess and wartime record, and the moralizing and gossipy Plutarch, who wrote his Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans about 500 years later. After fathering two sons, Pericles divorced his wife to live with his brilliant and beautiful mistress, Aspasia, who, along with his friends and political allies, became the butt of often-bawdy jokes of popular comics and dramatists. Pericles’ early public career is sketchy. Plutarch says that Pericles at fi rst feared ostracism because he supposedly resembled the tyrant Peisistratus and was a rich nobleman with a dicey ancestral history. As Victor Ehrenberg (Sophocles and Pericles) writes of classical Athens, “the theater was the polis,” and it is likely that Pericles understood his native city’s profoundly cultural politics. Much later Pericles supported rebuilding Athenian temples destroyed by the Persians and supported constructing the Parthenon. Though strenuously opposed by the crafty oligarchic politician Thucydides of Alopece, an ally of Cimon, Pericles’ patriotic urban renewal program continued unobstructed after 443 b.c.e., when Thucydides was ostracized. From then on, according to Plutarch, Pericles “got all Athens and all affairs pertaining to the Athenians into his own hands,” more or less unopposed. It is true that Athens’s material prosperity reached its peak between 454 and 431 b.c.e., when Pericles was elected to the board of 10 generals. However, Pericles’ building program likely had strategic and political causes as well. Whether Pericles played a personal role in the anti- oligarchic movement led by the elusive Ephialtes is unclear, but Pericles prosecuted Cimon for bribery in 463–462 b.c.e., supported legislation to pay citizens for holding public offi ce, and backed a law to limit citizenship to children of native-born Athenians. He may also have been inspired to support a general public works policy by observing the economic consequences of construction of the Long Walls fortifi cation around Athens after 461 b.c.e. Pericles stood adamantly for making Athens the predominant power in the Hellenic world. Though tactically cautious at fi rst, he was not averse to expanding Athens’s formidable naval and commercial power, as he demonstrated in punitive and trading expeditions and in his defeat of maritime rival, Samos. Pericles’ tough-minded diplomacy grew from his conviction of the superiority of Athenian cultural and civic values and institutions. Periclean strategy in the Peloponnesian War that began in 431 b.c.e. arose directly from previous Athenian policies toward rebellious cities of Athens’s empire and from the geopolitical consequences of the Thirty Years’ Peace between Athens and Sparta in 446–445 b.c.e. At that time the Athenians agreed to abjure mainland protectorates in the interest of the longterm safety and congruity of their maritime empire. As a result, Athenian security thereafter necessitated extending the Long Walls all around the city and its port at Piraeus and maintaining free navigation into the Black Sea. As Thucydides described the working of Pericles’ policy, “The Athenians listened to his advice, and began to carry in their wives and children from the country, and all their household furniture, even to the woodwork of their houses which they took down.” When war fi nally came after impassable deadlocks over Megara’s commercial status and Athenian intervention in Corcyra’s civil strife, Pericles probably thought he had done as much as he could to prepare for it. He could not foresee the onset of a terrible plague that soon severely affl icted the city’s crowded living space and claimed Pericles’ own life in 429 b.c.e. See also Greek city-states; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon; Persian invasions; Platonism. Further reading: Ehrenberg, V. Sophocles and Pericles. Oxford: Blackwell, 1954; Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1998; McGregor, M. F. The Athenians and Their Empire. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press, 1987; Podlecki, Anthony J. Pericles and His Circle. New York: Routledge, 1998; What Was Life Like at the Dawn of Democracy: Classical Athens, 525–322 BC. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1997. Leo J. Mahoney persecutions of the church Church tradition speaks of 10 great persecutions, probably in imitation of the 10 plagues of Moses. Persecutions struck a nerve among Christians, and they produced martyrologies and legends. In reality there were diverse and localized persecutions but three widespread persecutions under Decius (249–250 c.e.), Valentianus (257–258 c.e.), and Diocletian (303–312 c.e.). Stephen was the fi rst martyr (c. 35 c.e.), and then James of Zebeddee, and a general persecution broke out under Herod Agrippa (c. 42 c.e.). The biblical book of Revelation speaks of societal hostility against the early Christians. Rarely did this persecution come from the government; usually it was from other religious groups 344 persecutions of the church (such as the Jews or the pagans). Nero (54–68) and Domitian (81–96) were known to have blamed Christians for problems of their own administration. The legal basis for these persecutions is known from the correspondence between Pliny and the emperor Trajan around 110: If a resident did not make offerings to the Roman gods, he or she could be executed. However, the Christians were not sought out by prosecutors, and emperors did not make it their business to conduct widespread campaigns against them. Later persecutions occurred when specifi c charges were fi led: Polycarp of Smyrna (156), the Lyons martyrs (177), the Scillitan martyrs in Carthage (180), Felicity and Perpetua (203). Nonetheless, the persecutions were sporadic and local. The fi rst empire-wide persecution broke out in 249, when Emperor Decius tried to restore traditional values to the Roman state. He ordered that the annual Roman sacrifi ces be mandatory in various cities, and that prominent Christian leaders in those places be arrested and executed. Local commissions were set up to enforce these decrees. Only Decius’s death in 251 cut short the serious threat to the church. The second big persecution was initiated by Valerius in 257. Initially, the decrees seemed to be motivated by a desire for church wealth, but a year later executions and cruel forms of punishment went beyond confi scations. Valerius would condemn Christians to the mines, beat them with whips, and shave their heads as runaway slaves and criminals. Eventually, the Roman Empire backed away from its anti-Christian position, and the church began to go public. After 40 years of relative calm, the empire under Diocletian returned to its hostility against the church. Diocletian’s major goal was to unify and rejuvenate the moribund empire, and the Christians were viewed as uncooperative. For nine years (303–312) the government pursued a program against the Christians, banning all scriptures, tearing down churches, prohibiting meetings, and stripping Christians of legal rights. At fi rst Diocletian did not kill Christians, for he did not want martyrs, but later his deputies carried out massive executions, especially in North Africa. When Diocletian retired in 305, persecution died out in the West but continued in the East. Later, when paganism did not revive and Christianity only grew, grudging offi cial acceptance of Christianity was given in 311–312. The empire had little to gain by crushing the church. See also Christianity, early; Constantine the Great; Rome: government. Further reading: Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986; Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 1984. Mark F. Whitters Persepolis, Susa, and Ecbatana Persepolis, literally “the City of the Persians,” was founded by Darius I the Great, the third king of the Achaemenid, or Persian, Empire (539–331 b.c.e.). Work on the city began around 518 b.c.e. but was not completed until about 100 years later by King Artaxerxes I. It was conceived of as a royal city in Pars, the heartland of Persia, the central-southern province of modern-day Iran, and Darius’s refuge away from the summer heat of the Mesopotamian plain. It is located just 25 miles southwest of Pasargadae, the historical capital of the Achaemenids, where the Persian Empire’s founder, Cyrus II, was buried. Unlike the other capital cities of the empire— Ecbatana, Susa, and Babylon—Persepolis was never designed to be a populous city, rather a ceremonial city. The Greek writer Herodotus (c. 480–c. 429 b.c.e.) tells us that the city was not much lived in by the kings, who moved between the other capitals. Persepolis had one key purpose and that was as a location for the celebration of the New Year festival. Even today Iran has a totally different New Year from that observed in the West, a year that begins at the equinox on March 21. In ancient Persia, as in much of the ancient Near East, the New Year was a time when the gods were especially appeased, and therefore its ceremonies were the most important of the year. At New Year, delegations from all the satrapies (or regions) of the empire would come to Persepolis not only to pay homage to the emperor, bringing tribute, but also entering into the festivities. The ruins of the city, visible today, are fi lled with friezes that enact the arrival of the ambassadors from all over the empire, each one wearing national dress, and all overseen by the Immortals, the elite personal guard of the emperor. Persepolis was partially destroyed by Alexander the Great when he ended the Persian Empire in 331 b.c.e., and according to the Roman author Plutarch, its vast treasures were carried away on 20,000 mules and 5,000 camels. However, the remoteness of the location and its mystique have meant much of the ancient city was preserved. Unlike Persepolis, Susa and Ecbatana were working cities and capitals in their own right before the advent Persepolis, Susa, and Ecbatana 345 of the Persian Empire. Susa is situated on the Karun River on the southeastern corner of the Mesopotamian plain, on the Iranian side of the Iran-Iraq border, where Mesopotamia touches the foothills of the Zagros Mountains. Susa was the capital of the Elamite people at the time of the Persian Empire, but the site has been occupied since at least 4000 b.c.e. Around 2000 b.c.e. the Elamites, undoubtedly setting out from Susa, destroyed the power of the city of Ur, famous in the Bible as the city from which Abraham’s family came. Possibly the greatest period in the city’s history was in the 13th century b.c.e. when the Elamites successfully sacked Babylon, carrying off many of its treasures to enrich Susa. However, the fortunes of war meant that Susa itself was sacked a number of times, one of the most famous of which was in 639 b.c.e. when Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, the nation so feared in the ancient world, invaded. Susa is possibly best known as the residence of the biblical Daniel and Esther, who were there during the Persian era. During this period the city underwent a major building program with the construction of a citadel, moated walled city, and royal palaces. Early on in his conquests Alexander the Great received the surrender of Susa as soon as he approached the city, and he plundered much of its wealth. After Alexander, Susa became part of the Seleucid Empire and then the Parthian Empire. Its importance gradually waned and from the beginning of the 13th century c.e. little was left but crumbling ruins. Ecbatana, modern-day Hamadan in the west of Iran, was the ancient capital of the Median people. It was strategically situated on the eastern edge of the Zagros Mountains, guarding one of three ancient passes linking the Mesopotamian plain with the lands to the east. The Greek writer Herodotus of Halicarnassus records that Deioces, the legendary fi rst king of the Medes, founded the city. It was the capital of Media during the period of Median strength before Cyrus the Great, but it possibly acquired greater fame when Cyrus defeated the Medes in 550 b.c.e. and made Ecbatana his summer palace. Its high altitude made its summers delightfully cool in comparison to the heat of the Mesopotamian plain. Later Ecbatana became one of the capitals of the Seleucid and then Parthian Empires. See also Babylon, later periods; Egypt, culture and religion; Fertile Crescent; Medes, Persians, and Elamites; Xerxes. Further reading: Matheson, Sylvia A. Persia: An Archaeological Guide. Tehran, Iran: Yassavoli Publications, 2000; Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Andrew Pettman Persian invasions The Persian Wars, or Greco-Persian Wars, were a succession of confl icts between shifting alliances of Greek states and the Persian Empire. Wars were fought for the control of strategically important territories, also determining whether Greek or Persian culture predominated in the Aegean Sea. As a result of victories at the Battles of Salamis and Marathon, the Greeks were able to resist the superior manpower and resources of the Persians. Had it been otherwise, the democratic and philosophical traditions of ancient Greece that did so much to shape the Western consciousness might have been delayed or even suppressed. In the sixth century b.c.e. Persian kings, including Cyrus II and Cambyses II, expanded Persian possessions on the Anatolian coast and annexed a series of Greek colonies and island settlements. This process was intensifi ed under Darius I, who acceded to the throne in 522 b.c.e. and eventually inspired the Ionian Revolt, which lasted from 500 to 494 b.c.e., during which various Persian conquests rose up and attempted to claim independence. Eventually, the revolt was crushed, but the fact that Athens had sent a small naval force in support of the rebels provided a pretext for subsequent attempted expansion of Persian rule in Europe. A Persian force landed to the northeast of Athens in 490 b.c.e. in the vicinity of Marathon. There, an Athenian force of around 10,000 troops met them, together with some of their allies. The Athenians under Miltiades found the Persians without their large cavalry force in attendance and rapidly attacked and defeated them. The Persians fl ed and returned to Asia Minor. Darius was succeeded by Xerxes, and he set about mobilizing a huge invasion force, made ready in 479 b.c.e. The force moved only in an unwieldy fashion, and while the Greeks were terrifi ed of what it could achieve, they had time to prepare for its arrival. A League of Defense was created and led jointly by Athens and Sparta, with the former commanding the sea and the latter the land, in accordance with their military and logistic capabilities. In both cases the Greeks were hugely outnumbered. However, the Persians had to cope with signifi cant supply problems, forcing their ships to keep in contact with the land force. The Spar- 346 Persian invasions tans sent their famed hoplite infantry to meet the advance of the Persians at the pass of Thermopylae. They withstood the continual Persian onslaught, aided by the narrow ground, which limited the number of Persian troops able to attack at one time. However, the Spartans were eventually defeated, according to legend because of a traitor who enabled the Persians to outfl ank the position and attack from behind. Realizing that defeat was inevitable, King Leonidas of Sparta sent most of the 7,000 Greek troops south to safety but remained to the bitter end with his Spartan troops and their Thespian allies. This is the battle that prompted Simonides to compose the monumental text “go tell the Spartans, passer by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie.” At the same time that Leonidas was resisting the Persian army, the Athenian navy and their allies, under Themistocles, were facing the Persian navy. It is recorded that Themistocles commanded 271 ships. The Persians dispatched 200 ships to try to lure the Athenians into battle, unsuccessfully. Instead, the Athenian ships retired to their harbor while the Persians waited outside and were largely destroyed by a powerful storm. Many Persian ships remained, and the Athenians were persuaded to abandon their city and take refuge further inland. The Persians burned Athens but, desiring to achieve a decisive victory over the Athenian army, Xerxes allowed himself to be outmaneuvered by Themistocles in deploying his fl eet in the Straits of Salamis, where the more skillful Athenian sailors managed to destroy the Persian fl eet at close quarters. The remnants of the Persian fl eet returned to Asia Minor. The Battle of Salamis represented the end of the second Persian invasion, with the army unsupplied and demoralized. A fi nal victory at the Battle of Pla taea ensured that the Greek mainland would be free of colonization. However, military operations continued for several decades as the Athenian-led Delian League undertook naval actions throughout the Aegean with a view to liberating Persian-held Greek colonies. These actions achieved some success and persuaded the Persians to agree to the Peace of Callias in 449 b.c.e. The Persian invasions represented genuinely signifi cant attempts to conquer and annex Greece and to convert Greece into a satrapy of the Persian Empire. See also Greek city-states; Marathon, Battle of. Further reading: Boardman, John, Jasper Griffi n, and Oswyn Murray, eds. The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002; Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Selincourt. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003; Kitto, H. D. F. The Greeks. New York: Penguin Books, 1950; Strauss, Barry. The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter That Saved Greece—and Western Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. John Walsh Persian myth Iranian myths do not belong to just one era but many epochs over the 12,000-year chronology. The history of myth in Iran is divided into four eras, each covering three millennia. The fi rst quarter refers to creation as a spiritual essence in which no place or time could be felt, and the world was far from any substance or movement. However, the spiritual world manifested itself in two types of existence: one belonging to Ahura Mazda (Ormazd), the knowledgeable master, good and truthful spirit; and the other belonging to the evil spirit, Ahriman. The confl ict between good and evil is prevalent in Iranian myth. Zorwan is a god who prays to have a son with Ormazd’s characteristics to create the world. At the end of the 1,000th year Zorwan doubts his prayers are working. Because of this doubt, Ormazd and Ahriman simultaneously arise in him. The former represents his patience, while the latter signifi es his doubt. Zorwan promises to make the elder ruler and lord of the world. Ahriman is born fi rst, and Zorwan, because of his promise, appoints Ahriman as the ruler for a fi nite part of the 9,000 remaining years. Zorwan is sure that Ormazd will triumph over Ahriman and successfully rule over the world for eternity. In the second quarter the world turns to a material one, and the fi rst emblems of the world’s prototypes are created. Ormazd creates the six major prototypes of creation: sky, water, earth, plants, animals, and human beings. The human prototype, Kiumarth, is mortal. He is created to help god and is called Ahlav (the holy man). The third quarter presents a mixture of good and evil, light and darkness, and a blending between Ormazd and Ahriman’s wills. Ahriman moves toward the borders of light, leaving darkness behind and becoming aware of many good creatures that Ahura Mazda has created. In competing with him he destroys his creatures and invades every prototype created by Ormazd and spoils the mundane world. This period is referred to as gumizishn in Pahlavi writing and signifi es that both Ahriman and Ormazd are triumphant. Ormazd seeks god’s help and assistance. Ormazd, employing good forces, is able to reproduce each one of Persian myth 347 the prototypes of creation destroyed or spoiled by Ahriman. After Kiumarth’s death, Ormazd reproduces the human prototype. It is said that Kiumarth’s seed falls on the earth while passing away, is purifi ed by the Sun’s rays, and after 40 years turn, into Rivas, a holy plant with two stems. These stems become the fi rst human couple, Mashya and Mashayana. Evil forces lie in wait for the couple. The fi rst couple tells the fi rst lie, attributing creation to Ahriman. To punish their wrongdoing they are deprived of having children for a long time, before their reparation is accepted. At last they have seven sons and seven daughters. Each of the pairs marries and leaves for one of the seven territories or realms—according to Iranian mythology, ancient Iran was made up of seven countries. Humans expanded in number in the seven countries. The last part of the fourth quarter deals mainly with Zoroaster. This was the 10th millennium of creation when “Good Religion” expanded and developed throughout the world. Zoroaster visits Ormazd by the Daieti River in ancient Iran and stays with him for 10 years, when Ormazd reveals the religion’s mysteries to him. Zoroaster announces his prophethood, and based on the Pahlavi writings, Zoroaster is a complete human being in mazdaism (praising and worshipping Ahura Mazda). The middle texts and the Sassanids’ writings tell of the end of the world. The prophetical literature of Zoroastrians is simultaneous with the internal confl icts in the Sassanid Empire, expanding during Bahram Chubin’s rebellion. After the collapse of the Sassanids by the Muslim Arabs such literature is encouraged and revived. According to Sassanid texts, there are three saviors of the world. Houshidar, Houshidarmah, and Saoshyanth appear in the millennium after Zoroaster and expand good. All are miraculously born of Zoroaster’s seed and are his sons. Bahram (the victorious) and Pashootan are among the most famous. Bahram is a warrior, seeking truth by coming to Iran, riding on a white elephant. He defeats cruelty and clears Iran from impurity, providing a tranquillity that had been long lost. The middle texts report the birth of the trichotomous Saoshyanth as follows: Zoroaster makes love with his wife three times during a three-month period, after which his wife washes in the Kiyanseh River and Zoroaster’s seed is mixed with the river’s water. Naryousang, the lord, leaves the seeds with Anahita to mix with that of a mother at the proper time. A 15-year-old virgin swims in the Kiyanseh River, and she becomes pregnant and gives birth to the fi rst savior, Houshidar. At the age of 30 he meets Ormazd and learns all the teachings of Mazdims and continues the prophethood, previously held by his father Zoroaster. Houshidar cleanses religion, destroys Ahriman’s traditions, decreases famine and starvation, and helps expand the forces of good. In his reign children are born smarter, rivers become full, and plants only experience autumn every three years. Wild animals and predators disappear. Thirty years before Houshidar’s millennium ends, again a 15-year-old virgin swims in the Kiyanseh River and becomes pregnant, giving birth to Houshidarmah. Houshidarmah visits Ormazd when he is 30 years old and becomes responsible for bringing salvation to the world. The 20-day stoppage of the Sun is one of the signs of his emergence. At the beginning of his millennium plants experience autumn every six years, and all forces of evil are defeated. The thirst and hunger ghoul becomes too weak, and everybody can live on one meal a day. In the last 53 years of his millennium people become vegetarians and milk drinkers rather than fl esh eaters. Medicine fl ourishes during this era, and life expectancy increases. However, Zahak’s rebellion again unbalances good and evil in Iran. Ormazd resurrects Garshasb’s spirits to fi ght with Zahak and destroy him, and the golden years restart. Thirty years before the end of Houshidarmah’s millennium, Saoshyanth, the last creature of Ormazd, would be born miraculously of the prophet Zoroaster’s seed by a virgin mother and would become the world’s savior. At his revelation the Sun stays unmoved in the sky for 30 days. Saoshyanth is received warmly by Kay Xusraw who is riding on Izadwai (God of wind). Saoshyanth appreciates Kay Xusras’s braveries by destroying the idols and defeating Afrasyab and thereby making way for the reconstruction and renovation of the world. Kay Xusraw becomes king of all seven countries during the Saoshyanth’s millennium, while Saoshyanth is Moubad-e-Mubadan (lord of clergies). During Saoshyanth’s millennium, which lasts 57 years, everything would be accomplished according to Gathas (Zoroaster’s original teachings). He gathers an army and fi ghts the infi delity ghoul, who then hides in a hole. Shahrivar (the guard of metals in the mundane world) pours metal into the hole to imprison the evil ghoul and send him to hell. Saoshyanth overcomes all ghouls and evil forces through his fi ve prayers. Ahriman and his evil emblems are forgotten, and the wicked evil spirits are destroyed. The world becomes full of kindness, and happiness reigns. Ahriman’s creatures—ugliness, diseases, pain, lies, and greediness—disappear and plants and trees never experience autumn; they are evergreen. In the fi rst 17 years of Saoshyanth’s millennium, people eat plants. For 30 years they drink only water, and in 348 Persian myth the last 10 years they have no food and are instead fed with spiritual food. The ideal world is formed, and earth is restored to its original goodness. Such a world represents the combination of all of Ormazd’s potential forces and his absolute supremacy. This is how the world ends and resurrection, what man is waiting for, comes to pass, and the fi nite life turns into the infi nite one. See also prophets; Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha; Zoroastrianism. Further reading: Boyce, M. “Apocalyptic in Zoroastrianism.” In E. Yarshater, ed. Encyclopaedia Iranica. New York: Routledge, 1985; Charles, R. H. Religious Development between the Old and New Testament. London: Williams and Norgate, 1914; Dhabahar, B. N. The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Faramarz and Others. Bombay, India: n.p., 1932; Hellholm, D. Apocalypticism in the Mediterranian World and the Near East. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr, 1983. Faramarz Khojasteh, Mohammad Gharipour, and Mehrdad Amiri Persians See Medes, Persians, and Elamites. Petronius (c. 27–66 c.e.) Roman author Petronius was a courtier under Nero and the most likely author of the Roman novel Satyricon. If he was the man identifi ed by Tacitus as the “arbiter of elegance” who “idled into fame” by refi ning debauchery into a science, his full name would be Caius Petronius Arbiter, although manuscripts of the Satyricon give the name as Titus Petronius Niger. As proconsul in Bithynia and later as consul elect, Petronius gained a reputation as a capable administrator. However, the following portrait from Tacitus’s Annals would lead one to think otherwise: “Petronius passed the day in sleep, the night in business and in life’s pleasures. As industry brought other men to prominence, so idleness bored him to fame. He was not considered a debauchee or a profl igate, as with most wastrels, but a polished artist of excess.” His vices won him admission into the circle of Nero’s intimates, and the Roman emperor thought nothing elegant unless Petronius pronounced it thus. As such, he soon incurred the jealousy of Tigellinus, a rival who considered himself superior in the science of pleasure. Tigellinus engineered Petronius’s fall by charging him with friendship with Scaevinus, who had been implicated in Calpurnius Piso’s conspiracy in 61 c.e. Deprived of a chance to defend himself, most of his household was imprisoned, and an order for his detention was issued. Under such circumstances an ancient might seek consolation in philosophy, taking comfort in the permanence of the soul, much like Socrates in Phaedo. In Nero’s Rome, of course, it was expected that the soonto- be-deceased should fl atter the emperor in his will. Petronius, however, lived out his fi nal hours in a grand parody of heroic suicides in theater. Without waiting for the inevitable he had a surgeon slit his vein and then bind it up again, so as to allow time for a leisurely dinner party with friends. Rather than speculating on the afterlife, he passed the evening listening to frivolous songs and light poetry. Instead of writing a will in his fi nal hours, Petronius supposedly detailed the abominable acts of the emperor and enumerated his catamites, whores, and innovations in perversion. This scandalous document, sealed with his ring-signet, was sent to Nero. Some hypothesized that this last testament of Petronius was his great work the Satyricon, which they considered a roman à clef of Nero; however, this claim is rather unlikely. The length and sophistication of what survives of the novel bespeak sustained effort. In 1420 Poggio Bracciolini discovered a Carolingian manuscript in Cologne that aimed to preserve the poems in the Satyricon, excising its salacious narrative. Almost 200 years later another manuscript surfaced that had the opposite and complementary purpose: preserving the narrative. These two furnished the basis for the modern edition of the Satyricon. In the Satyricon the protagonist, Encolpius, with his boy-lover Giton, stumbles from one misadventure of sexual excess, humiliation, and human folly to another. Petronius’s dissolute world admits no place for romantic love, and sex—preferably with boys or men—results only in comedy and/or degradation. Indeed, the Satyricon is the very opposite of the idealized love stories found in the ancient Greek novel. Petronius is keenly interested in the attitudes and behaviors of the various social classes, realistically portraying them against a backdrop of Roman life in settings such as the rhetorical school, the brothel, and even a banquet—the so-called Cena Trimalchionis that detailed the menagerie of tasteless horrors on the estate of the notorious parvenu Trimalchio. This scene was a central feature of Federico Fellini’s idiosyncratic fi lm that takes its title from the novel. Satyricon’s social scope is equaled by the range of literary models it parodies, from Homer’s Odyssey to Virgil and Lucan, not to mention tragedy, philosophy, Petronius 349 and even popular literature. It does not offer the reader any moral lens to enable judgment but instead offers a vision of decadent Rome without fl inching from the unsavory—a work unequalled in the ancient world for its complexity, length, and unerring focus on human depravity. See also Homeric epics; Roman historians; Roman poetry. Further reading: Conte, Gian-Biaggio. The Hidden Author: An Interpretation of Petronius’ Satyricon. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997; Müller, K., ed. Petronius Satyricon Reliquiae. Munich, Germany: Saur, 2003; Rimell, Victoria. Petronius and the Anatomy of Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Walsh, P. G., trans. The Satyricon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. S-C Kevin Tsai pharaoh Although in ancient Egypt the term pharaoh (great house) referred to the royal palace and was used in reference to the monarch only as an instance of metonymy, modern historians follow the biblical convention of using the term for the monarch himself. Some Egyptians of the New Kingdom and later used the term the same way, but informally and never in offi cial contexts. The fi rst time pharaoh was used to refer to the monarch himself was in reference to Akhenaten. The pharaoh wore a double crown to symbolize his rule of both Lower Egypt (Ta-Mehu, in the north, where the Nile Delta drains into the Mediterranean) and Upper Egypt (Ta-Shemau, in the south but upstream along the Nile River). The First Dynasty unifi ed the two kingdoms in the 31st or 32nd century b.c.e. It is not entirely clear who was the fi rst pharaoh of a unifi ed Egypt. No pharaonic crown has been found; pharaohs apparently were not buried with it, and there may have been one crown that was passed on from one ruler to the next. The record of pharaohs is incomplete and often confl icting; the case of Menes is only one of several in which modern Egyptologists believe a recorded name may refer to a pharaoh we know by another name, or may only be legend. In the Intermediate Periods and the early dynasties, there are dozens of pharaohs about whom we have only fragments of names, names without further information (such as the length of their reign or when it transpired), or dubious names that do not seem to fi t with the information we do have. Many pharaohs we know according to different parts of their full title, which by the Middle Kingdom became the fi vefold titulary, a system of increasingly formalized names arranged to describe the pharaoh’s rule. These fi ve names were the Horus name (also called the Banner name and the Ka name), the Nebty (or Two Ladies) name, the Golden Horus (or Gold) name, the praenomen, and the nomen. The Horus name represented the pharaoh’s divine relationship with the god Horus and was written in hieroglyphics in a pictograph of a palace, usually alongside the god in the form of a falcon. Horus names date to the Old Kingdom period and are frequently the only surviving name of early pharaohs, who adopted it upon ascending the throne and ceased using their birth names. In the earliest dynasties Horus was read as part of the name: Hor-Aha, had he ruled in a later time, would simply have been Aha. During the New Kingdom period Horus was often depicted wearing a double crown and appeared with a sun and a uraeus (a stylized cobra appearing on the pharaoh’s crown). The Nebty name became standard in the Twelfth Dynasty and was associated with the patron goddesses of Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt: Wadjet (symbolized by a cobra) and Nekhbet (symbolized by a vulture). Each goddess’s symbol appeared beside the name. The signifi cance of the Golden Horus name is somewhat less clear. It appeared beside a falcon perched above the hieroglyph for gold, and the Greek portion of the Rosetta Stone translates as “superior to his foes.” Many Egyptologists believe the name symbolizes Horus’s triumph over his brother Seth, but gold’s symbolic meaning as “eternity” may be equally important, and the name may refl ect something about the pharaoh’s wishes for the afterlife, an aspect of himself he considered immutable in any world. At the end of the Old Kingdom most pharaohs were known only by their praenomen and nomen. Each of the names was enclosed in a cartouche, an oblong that enclosed a name to indicate its royal status. Other names were reserved for offi cial formal purposes and record keeping. The nomen was the birth name given to the crown prince and was represented by a duck (a homonym for the word for “son”) and a sun to represent Ra. “The good god” or “the lord of apparitions” was sometimes added before the nomen. The praenomen was a name chosen upon ascending the throne and usually included a reference to Ra. It often appeared along with the title “Lord of the Two Lands,” another reminder of Egypt’s pluralism. The full name of Thutmose I, a Nineteenth Dynasty pharaoh, was therefore Kanakht 350 pharaoh Merymaat Khamnesretnebetaapehti Neferrenputseankhibu Aakheperkare Thutmose, with various titles inserted between the names according to the occasion. THE PHARAOH’S ROLE IN RELIGION As the son of Horus (and as a result of his connection with sun deities), the pharaoh had a divinely paternal relationship with his nation: personal, disciplinary, protective, and sustaining. The pharaoh was the source not only of the land’s fertility and abundance but of the maintenance of maat, a distinctly Egyptian concept sometimes translated as “truth” or “justice” (as the goddess Ma’at presided over both) and related to the Greek logos. Maat is perhaps best understood, as “the way things ought to be,” a blueprint of a healthy and working universe in which everything is interdependent and in proper balance: Without it there would be chaos. When maat was in balance, the annual Nile fl oods would nourish the farmland, the people would have enough to eat and would not be beset by illness or plague, and Egypt would remain unconquerable. The pharaoh’s responsibility was to preserve maat not merely through appropriate action but by being suffi ciently divine, as a people ruled by a god would live in balance. The pharaohs’ extraordinary and labor-intensive construction projects resulting in the Sphinx, the pyramids, and other monuments reinforced the pharaoh’s importance. The pharaoh’s ka, a part of the soul—in ordinary people passed on from the father, for the pharaoh from his divine parent—was unique in that, perhaps like the double crown, it was passed on from one pharaoh to the next. It did not matter if the successor was the blood relative of his predecessor: As celebrated in the Opet festival of the New Kingdom, the pharaoh received his ka from Amun and returned it to the god in the form of ritual and offerings so that it could be strengthened and maintained for the pharaohs to come. The Opet festival was one of many which celebrated the pharaoh’s relationship with his kingdom and the divine and consisted largely of ceremonies and rituals in which the public did not participate, not even to bear witness. Increasingly, especially during the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom periods, participatory religious activities were absorbed into the religiopolitical framework of Egyptian government, and the priesthood was indistinguishable from the court bureaucracy. SIGNIFICANT PHARAOHS Sneferu Sneferu was the founder of the Fourth Dynasty and a prolifi c builder of pyramids and monuments. Under his reign the pyramid of Huni at Meidum was completed and turned from a step pyramid into the world’s fi rst true pyramid (one with smooth sides). At the royal necropolis of Dahshur, he also built the so-called Bent Pyramid (the top of which was built at an angle 11 degrees shallower than the rest, making it appear to bend or dimple) and the Red Pyramid, so called for its exposed granite surface. All of Sneferu’s pyramids show an interest in experimenting with building styles not seen under other pharaohs. Khufu Best known by his Greek name, Cheops, Khufu was the son of Sneferu and builder of the Great Pyramid of Giza. The only one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World that stands today, the Great Pyramid originally stood at 481 feet with a base covering 53,000 sq. miles and weighed about 6 million tons, or as much as 17 Empire State Buildings. Khafra A Fourth-Dynasty pharaoh, Khafra was most likely Khufu’s grandson and continued in his family’s tradition of building. After building a smaller pyramid at Giza, he built the Great Sphinx, a half-man/half-lion statue 260 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 65 feet tall. The lion was often a symbol of the Sun, as well as one used pharaoh 351 Labor-intensive construction projects such as the Great Sphinx (above) reinforced the pharaoh’s importance and divine status. to represent the pharaoh during those early dynasties. Sphinx is a Greek name; it is unclear what the Egyptians called it and unknown whether the face of the Sphinx is meant to be that of Khafra or perhaps his father, or even Sneferu, the dynastic founder. Pepi II A Sixth Dynasty pharaoh whose reign began at age six and lasted for 94 years (2278–2184 b.c.e.), Pepi enjoyed the longest reign of any monarch in history. It was not a strong reign: Pepi’s rule is associated with the decline of the Old Kingdom, as power, infl uence, prestige, and wealth shifted from the pharaoh to the nomarchs (provincial governors). It is not clear whether Merenre Nemtyemsaf II or Nitiqret succeeded Pepi. Nitiqret The last pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty is believed to have been a woman named Nitiqret. Her existence is attested both by Greek historian Herodotus and in detail by third-century b.c.e. Egyptian historian Manetho. Manetho credits her with the third pyramid at Giza, while Herodotus describes her fratricide and subsequent suicide. Many modern Egyptologists believe that Nitiqret never existed, and that “Nitiqret” originated as a bad transliteration of the male pharaoh Netjerkare Siptah I. Sobekneferu Sobekneferu, on the other hand, was certainly a pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty, and the fi rst known female ruler of Egypt. She was most likely the daughter of Amenemhat III, whose son (her brother, Amenemhat IV) died without a male heir. She reigned for just less than four years, and the Twelfth Dynasty ended with her. Akhenaten Originally called Amenhotep IV at the beginning of his Eighteenth Dynasty reign, Akhenaten is a complicated fi gure. The son of Amenhotep III and Tiy, and possibly a co-regent in the last few years of his father’s reign, Akhenaten was a religious heretic whose beliefs would become the central focus of his reign. He revered the obscure solar deity Aten; for Akhenaten the Aten was not simply a deity of the Sun but the solar disc itself and the properties of light responsible for sustaining life. The Aten had previously been associated with a syncretic deity, a combination of Horus, Ra, and Amun, but Akhenaten dismissed those humanoid gods in favor of the disc itself and eventually declared the Aten the only true deity. Atenism, also called the Amarna heresy, thus began as a henotheistic faith, one that acknowledged the existence of other gods but did not worship them (an unusual stance in the ancient world). Akhenaten emphasized a personal relationship with the divine Aten over the rituals that had so dominated Egyptian spiritual life—something which modern commentators have fi xated on, sometimes calling him “the fi rst individual.” While Sigmund Freud argued that Akhenaten’s monotheism inspired Judaism, there is no reasonable evidence for this, and the theory ignores the signifi cant evidence that Jewish monotheism developed out of early henotheistic (and perhaps polytheistic) traditions that predate Akhenaten’s reign. It is also unlikely that Akhenaten is either of the two pharaohs referred to in the biblical book of Exodus. Tutankhamun After Akhenaten’ and the Amarna heresy Egypt returned to traditional worship under Tutankhamun, best known now as “King Tut.” Howard Carter discovered his well-preserved tomb at the apex of Egyptology’s hold on the popular imagination, in 1923, leading to urban legends of “the mummy’s curse” and inspiring a new generation of tomb raiders. Cleopatra VII Generally referred to now simply as Cleopatra, Cleopatra VII Philopator was the last Hellenistic ruler of Egypt, the last member of the Ptolemaic dynasty that had begun when Ptolemy, a Macedonian general to Alexander the Great, declared himself ruler of all Egypt in the aftermath of Alexander’s death. The Ptolemaic dynasty had included seven queens, all named Cleopatra (Greek for “father’s glory”). All the kings were named Ptolemy. Though perhaps not technically a pharaoh, Cleopatra is signifi cant in the discussion of Egyptian monarchic rule, not for her romances with Roman general Mark Antony and Julius Caesar, but because with her suicide Egypt passed into Roman hands. While Roman rulers proclaimed themselves “Pharaoh of Egypt” from that point until the fall of the empire, there was never again a true pharaoh. See also Ptolemies; pyramids of Giza. Further reading: Arnold, Dieter. Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991; Dodson, Aidan. Monarchs of the Nile. London: Rubicon Press, 1995; Hobson, Christine. The World of the Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987; Hornung, Erik. The Valley of the Kings. New York: Timken, 1990; Quirke, Stephen. Who Were the Pharaohs? New York: Dover, 1990; Shaw, Ian. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University 352 pharaoh Press, 2000; Watterson, Barbara. Amarna: Ancient Egypt’s Age of Revolution. Charleston, SC: Tempus, 1999; Weeks, Kent R. Valley of the Kings. New York: Friedman, 2001. Bill Kte’pi Pharisees The common interpretation of the Pharisees comes to modern audiences through the speeches of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth in the New Testament. There they play the role of Jesus’s opponents and are almost seen in a negative light. Their arguments with Jesus revolve around issues of religious customs, like the observance of the Sabbath day, the keeping of a special diet that is biblically approved (kosher), the physical contact with people outside their sect, and obligatory religious donations (tithing). The overall picture that the reader makes out is that the Pharisees are not so concerned for the spiritual well-being of their devotees as for preserving their own prestige and authority. This picture is balanced with a more objective reading of the New Testament. The Gospels portray the fact that the Pharisees are zealous for correct interpretations of the scriptures and are willing to mix with the people in order to disseminate this information. The Pharisees therefore worked with the laypeople in a way that no other Jewish group, besides the followers of Jesus, cared to do. The Sadducees, for example, sequestered themselves in the administration of the central temple, and the monastic community called Qumran often epitomized the reclusive Essenes. Jesus and the Pharisees share many common views about religious doctrines. This is well attested by Paul’s trial defense when he cleverly notes that he is accused of believing what the Pharisees believe. In other situations Paul tells his audience that he is a Pharisee and proud of it. Many of the early church followers come from the ranks of Pharisees. When it comes to the passion and death of Jesus, the Bible generally does not give the decisive role to the Pharisees. Instead, the temple authorities (the Sadducees) and the Romans are the main perpetrators of the execution of Jesus. On the other hand, a sanitized view of the Pharisees can be found in the writings of the rabbis. The rabbis, especially in later centuries, liked to trace their lineage to the Pharisees and, before them, to the biblical lawgivers such as Moses and Ezra. The father of the rabbinic movement, Yohanan ben Zakkai, is portrayed as the next in line to the Pharisees. The rabbis liked to imagine that their ancestral Pharisees included the likes of the legendary sages Hillel, Shammai, and Akiba. The problem is that these rabbinic tales are compiled too long after the demise of the Pharisees and hence tell more about 150–650 c.e. than 150 b.c.e.–150 c.e. The rabbinic sources, though, do show some of the same issues brought out in the New Testament, namely, diet, Sabbath, fraternizing with outsiders, and tithing, so it is fair to say that it refl ects some more ancient historic realities. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the fi rst century c.e., tells the third perspective on the Pharisees. For Josephus the Pharisees are one of the three main Jewish philosophies, including the Sadducees and the Essenes. Although Josephus admits that the Pharisees have infl uenced him, he is ambivalent about the Pharisees, sometimes applauding them for their infl uence over the people and for their moderate position between the doctrines of the other philosophies, sometimes fi nding fault with them due to their political meddling. The Pharisees must be contrasted to their rivals, largely, the Sadducees and the Essenes, and likened to their later competitors, the Christians. They were in some ways a reform group who did not agree with the temple authorities, yet they did not abandon mainstream society in the form of a counterculture. Thus, they actually reached out to the Jewish towns and villages and attempted to bring their interpretation of the biblical rules to everyday life. In effect, they decentralized and democratized Jewish religion. The home and the local synagogue became parallel centers of holiness, and this measure prepared the Jews for the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. The Pharisees also believed in some of the same doctrines that the followers of Jesus did, like the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, heaven and hell, and a spiritual world. These ideas were truly innovative for the Palestinian world that otherwise would have been controlled by the status-quo Sadducees. The Pharisees rejected the Roman world order, optimistic that a new age was about to begin. See also Christianity, early; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); messianism; Mishnah. Further reading: Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, Companions and Competitors. New York: Doubleday, 2001; Saldarini, A. J. Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees. Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1988. Mark F. Whitters Pharisees 353 Philip of Macedon (382–336 b.c.e.) king of Macedonia King Philip II, expansionist ruler of Macedonia from 359 to 336 b.c.e., paved the way for his son Alexander the Great’s conquests. Philip was born in Pella in 382 b.c.e., the third son of King Amyntas III and his fi rst wife, Queen Eurydice. After Amyntas died in 370 b.c.e. Macedonia disintegrated because Philip’s brothers King Alexander II, assassinated in 367 b.c.e., and King Perdiccas III, who died in battle in 359 b.c.e., were unable to stop the overwhelming foreign attacks. The Thracians already possessed eastern Macedonia. Thebes, capital of Illyria, which bordered western Macedonia, occupied northwest Macedonia. From 368 to 365 b.c.e. Philip was a political hostage in Thebes and lived in the house of Pammenes. The learned Epaminondas taught him Greek lifestyle, customs, military tactics, and diplomacy. Upon his return to Macedonia Philip helped reform the Macedonian army. Despite the reforms Macedonia suffered 4,000 casualties, Perdiccas among them, in a battle against Illyrian king Bardylas in 359 b.c.e. The energetic, diplomatic, yet ruthless Philip ascended the throne at age 21, overthrowing his nephew Amyntas IV, the infant son of Perdiccas. Philip sought to advance in his political and military pursuits by reorganizing the Macedonian army, which was patterned after the Greek-style phalanx. His uniquely Macedonian phalanx gave each hoplite a longer, 18-foot spear called a sarissa. The eight to 16 rows of the phalanx moved toward the enemy, easily killing them from a distance of 20 feet. Another of Philip’s innovations was the creation of a professional army with fi nancial support that enticed enlistment. The newly organized Macedonian army instilled pride and strong loyalty toward Philip. Philip freed the northwest from the Illyrians by decisively defeating them in 358 b.c.e. Philip used numerous marriages to cement political alliances. Among his wives were Illyrian princess Audata, Phila, and Princess Olympias of Epirus, daughter of Neoptolemus, who gave him a son, Alexander, in 356 b.c.e. Philip decided he wanted the strategically important city-state of Amphipolis returned to Macedonia and captured it in 357 b.c.e., giving him access to the forests and ownership of the gold mine of Mount Pangeus. Philip captured the town of Crenides, which had been occupied by Thracians in 356 b.c.e., renaming it Phillipi and eliminating Thrace as a threat. The Greek cities of Potidaea and Paydna were captured in 356 b.c.e. He exiled non-Macedonians and sold them into slavery. An arrow cost Philip his right eye at the Battle for Methone in 354 b.c.e. where he defeated his enemy Argaeus. Philip was in control of Thessaly by 352 b.c.e. Demosthenes delivered three speeches from 351 to 349 b.c.e. denouncing Philip. He also conquered Olynthus in 348 b.c.e. and sold the Greeks into slavery. Within a few years he defeated 34 Greek city-states, including Stageira, the birthplace of Aristotle. In 346 b.c.e. the Thebans asked his support in their “Sacred War” with the Phocians. Philip destroyed the Phocian city at the Battle of Crocus Field. He made peace with Athens in 346 b.c.e. but six years later waged war by besieging Byzantium and Perinthus. Greek resistance emerged against the “barbarian” Philip who had ruthlessly suppressed Illyrian, Thracian, Greek, and Epirote rebellions. By 339 b.c.e. he defeated the Scythians near the Danube River and took 20,000 Scythian women and children as slaves. During this battle Philip was injured in his upper leg causing him to become permanently lame. In order to conquer Greece Philip amassed a large Macedonian army and sent his 18-year-old son Alexander to command the left wing of the phalanx as a general. The Battle of Chaeronea was fought on August 2, 338 b.c.e. The Greeks had 35,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry on the fi eld, opposed by 30,000 Macedonian infantry, leaving Philip outnumbered. However, with outstanding military tactics Philip defeated the Greeks. He had Macedonian garrisons built at Chalcis, Thebes, and Corinth. In 337 b.c.e. Philip organized the Greek city-states into the League of Corinth, which he headed, becoming de facto king of Greece. Philip married a noblewoman, Cleopatra, niece of his general Attalus. This act caused a fi ssure with Alexander, who fl ed with his mother to Epirus, her home country. Philip and Cleopatra had a son named Caranus. In 336 b.c.e. Philip began his invasion of Persia but stayed behind to attend the wedding celebration of his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus, the brother of Olympias. The Macedonian nobleman Pausanius assassinated Philip during the wedding and was immediately executed. Cleopatra and Caranus were later murdered. It was the legacy of Alexander III to destroy Persia and create the largest kingdom of antiquity. Alexander would not have been as spectacularly successful had Philip not made Macedonia a superpower. Further reading: Borza, Eugen N. Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia. Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 1999; Cawkwell, George. Philip of Macedon. London: Faber and Faber, 1978; Ellis, John R. Philip II and Macedonian Im- 354 Philip of Macedon perialism. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976; Hammond, Nicholas G. L. Philip of Macedon. London: Duckworth, 1994; Nardo, Don. Philip II and Alexander the Great Unify Greece in World History. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2000. Annette Richardson Philo (c. 20 b.c.e.–c. 50 c.e.) philosopher and scholar The fi rst-century c.e. Jewish author and philosopher Philo of Alexandria is an important fi gure for both Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. He was born around 20 b.c.e. in Alexandria into one of the wealthiest and most distinguished Jewish families. Alexandria had a thriving Jewish community and was known for its intellectual vigor. In addition to his Jewish education, therefore, Philo received schooling in the Greek custom, including the philosophy of Plato, Middle Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Stoicism, as well as Greek literature and rhetoric, all of which are evident in his work. For example, he refers to God with the Greek term logos when discussing the divine creation of the world. The infl uence of Greek traditions on Judaism in Philo’s work becomes in part representative of what is generally known as Hellenistic Judaism in distinction from Palestinian Judaism and its rabbinic traditions. While Hellenism infl uenced Philo, he remained a pious and loyal Jew who used his education to explain and defend Judaism and its beliefs. To this end he was very involved with the synagogues in Alexandria. His writings consist largely of philosophical, apologetic, and exegetical works. In addition to his intellectual pursuits, belonging to a prominent family ensured that Philo had public and political responsibilities as well. In a well-known incident around 39 c.e., Philo unsuccessfully led a Jewish delegation to the emperor Gaius Caligula in Rome, seeking rights for Jews, who were being severely mistreated by Alexandrians, who wished to deny Greek citizenship and its privileges to Jews. We also know that Philo traveled at least once on pilgrimage to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. He died around the year 50 c.e. Much of Philo’s work is exegetical in nature, and many individual writings include or consist entirely of commentaries on the biblical books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, with a special focus on the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and the laws of Moses. Working with the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures known as the Septuagint, Philo sought to demonstrate that the Jewish teachings in these books, especially Mosaic law, were compatible with and indeed were ultimately the source of the wisdom, natural law, and virtues of classical Greek philosophy. Thus, one must study divine revelation in scripture to gain knowledge of true philosophy. Philo’s exegesis is characterized by the allegorical method, which begins with the literal or historical level of meaning and then moves to the allegorical or spiritual level of meaning. Greek authors had used allegory for centuries, mainly to discover philosophical meanings in the writings of Homer, and Philo realized that it would help to uncover the higher meanings of scripture. This allegorical or spiritual meaning aids in the quest for spiritual perfection and knowledge of God, or in Philo’s terms, the transcendence of the soul above the body. With the decline of Alexandrian Jewish writings and the rise of rabbinic Judaism, ironically, Christians rather than Jews tended to read Philo. Well-educated Christians in Alexandria such as Clement and Origen also used allegory, and traces of Philo’s infl uence are evident in their exegesis of Genesis, for example. Subsequent Christians like Ambrose and Jerome either read Philo or those authors infl uenced by Philo. Early Christians are responsible for preserving many of Philo’s works, and some even refer to Philo by the honorary status of “Philo the Bishop” or “Philo Christianus.” See also Hellenization; Homeric epics; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); pre-Socratic philosophers; Socrates; Torah. Further reading: Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993; Winston, David. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1985. Jody Vaccaro Lewis Phoenician colonies Beginning with the Greek Dark Ages, Phoinikoi was the word used by Greeks to refer to the urban populations of the eastern Mediterranean seacoast. Phoenician cities from coastal Syria and Lebanon to the northern shore of Palestine, such as Ras al-Bassit (Poseidon), Tell Sukas (Sianu), Arwad (Arados), Tell Kazel (Sumur, Simyra), Tripolis, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, Ushu, Akhzib, Akko, Tell Keisan, Tell Abu Hawam, and Dor, clung to Phoenician colonies 355 the rocky islands, sheer cliffs, promontories, and open plains of the coastline. Inhabitants of these cities shared some degree of common ancestry and spoke a common language, also called Phoenician. The Phoenician-speaking populations were also united by numerous similarities of material culture, social organization, religious belief and practice, and economic enterprise. The Phoenicians are perhaps most famous for promulgating the 22-letter alphabet in which their documents were composed. The Phoenician alphabet is an ancestor of or inspiration for all succeeding alphabetic systems. The Phoenician dialect of Tyre and Sidon reached its most extensive use in the Neo-Assyrian period (c. 860– 600 b.c.e.). North of Syria, the Cilician region of Anatolia (modern Turkey) adopted the Tyrian-Sidonian Phoenician language and script for royal, administrative, and legal texts, generally with a parallel version in the local Luwian language, which was written in a hieroglyphic script. Westward expansion of Phoenician exploration and settlement would carry the language and script to Cyprus, Crete, the Aegean islands, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, the Balearics, and to the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula. Cádiz, ancient Gades, now in Spain, was the westernmost Phoenician city. An eighth-century b.c.e. inscription from Castillo de Doña Blanca (Puerto de Santa María, near Cádiz) identifi es its writer as originating from Akko, suggesting that westward expansion radiated from Tyre, as traditionally held. Tyre was also the mother city of colonies on the African continent: Utica the oldest, Lixus on the Atlantic coast of West Africa the most remote, and Carthage the largest and best known. Phoenician cultural infl uence extended south to the Sahara and sustained later Christian and Muslim Arab traditions that the indigenous population of North Africa was descended from Canaanites driven out of Palestine by Joshua. The territory of contemporary Syria, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine from Ras al-Bassit in the north to Dor in the south was called “Canaan” in ancient times, and people in the western Phoenician diaspora referred to themselves as “Canaanites.” Phoenician material culture is readily detected by the distinctive traditions of pottery form and decoration, with bichrome decoration giving way to blackon- red and an enduring red-slipped style. Phoenician graphic and plastic arts developed Egyptian themes and later Anatolian and European and African styles, often in exquisite miniature forms on seals and amulets. Early Phoenician settlements generally lack evidence of pork consumption, but later sites under European infl uence show a more varied diet. Both cremation burials and inhumation were practiced. Western loci exclusively for cremation burials of infants and children are widely interpreted as evidence of ritual infanticide. Phoenician religion was local, polytheistic, and family centered. Lineages of priests male and female conducted animal sacrifi ces and life cycle rituals; individual piety often combined Canaanite traditions with Egyptian magical practices. In the Levant, distinctives of Phoenician culture weakened under Hellenistic and later Roman infl uence. Christianity replaced earlier beliefs in many Phoenician cities; in North Africa, the Punic (late Phoenician) language and some other cultural practices survived— largely among the Christian population—until the Arab conquests. See also Assyria; Hannibal; Hellenization; hieroglyphics; Israel and Judah; Roman Empire. Further reading: Lipinski, E. Itineraria Phoenicia. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2004. Markoe, G. E. Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Philip C. Schmitz pilgrimage From time immemorial religious people have believed that certain places are more sacred than other places. They have made it a practice to visit these places, believing that they can obtain special advantages in so doing. The journey to such a destination is called a pilgrimage. Archaeological remains and epigraphic evidence abound for the ancient practice of pilgrimage. Usually the destination of pilgrimage had been set apart a long time before any particular religion had chosen it. What often distinguished the site were things like natural elevation, a grove of trees, a freshwater spring, or a sheltering cave, and then in the religious narrative about the place, some divine appearance or visitation marked the location. DELPHI AND THE GREEK GODS Such a case in point is Delphi, the place where the usually aloof Greek god Apollo made himself known. At the foot of Greece’s Mount Parnassus, wooded enough to be cool and high enough to give a commanding view of the sea below, Delphi was thought by Greeks to be the center of the Earth. Pilgrims had been coming here for centuries to drink from its sacred spring and to worship the serpent daughter of Mother Earth, Python, who was believed to live in a nearby cave. 356 pilgrimage When the Indo-Europeans migrated to Greece and prevailed with their pantheon of gods, Delphi became the site where Apollo slew Python and established his summer home. They built a temple to him over the ruins of the earlier cult, and inside they erected a pockmarked stone that they said was the actual navel (omphalos) of the Earth. Beginning around the eighth century b.c.e. pilgrims began to fl ock to Delphi to seek advice from the priestess there who was known as the Delphic oracle. Other pilgrimage places sprouted up throughout the ancient world. Oracles and healing shrines (such as the Asclepion) drew thousands of tourists, devotees, and needy people, making pilgrimage something of a factor in economic prosperity and international relations. Pilgrimage sites could both keep the peace and bring prosperity and provoke religious wars and economic hard times. THE ARK OF THE COVENANT For the people of the Bible many of the same elements constituted the pilgrimage experience. Naturally endowed places and previous religious sites had drawing power, but more emphasized was a sense of divine visitation, or theophany. For example, the father of the 12 tribes of Israel, Jacob, had some kind of physical struggle with Israel’s God on his way to Haran. This place (called Bethel, “house of God”) then became a sacred place where an altar was set up and periodic worship conducted. The Ark of the Covenant later became a focal point of the religion of Israel, and wherever it was, the people would go to seek divine assistance. Eventually, Jerusalem outweighed all the other pilgrimage spots, for here is where the Ark was sheltered and where Israel’s God chose to dwell. As with Delphi, the pilgrimage site became the source for both unity and peace among the 12 tribes. The pilgrim of the Jewish Bible would go to Jerusalem for the three feasts: Passover, Pentecost (Shavu‘ot), and Tabernacles (Sukkot). Though not every male could fulfi ll this annual duty, the prominence of Jerusalem and the Temple united the people and centralized much of the common life. Even after the Temple was destroyed in 70 c.e., Jews continued to keep pilgrimage for many years and even later observed pilgrimage customs in rabbinic Judaism. The Western (Wailing) Wall of Herod’s reconstructed Temple became the last vestige of the pilgrimage destination up until the present day. CHRISTIAN AND JESUS’S PILGRIMAGE The Christian people departed from their Jewish forebears in one respect: Pilgrimage was not a duty for them but an advantage for spiritual growth. Christians believed that some places were “holy” and worthy of pilgrimage, but they felt that Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth had already fulfi lled the obligation of pilgrimage through his fi nal journey to Jerusalem and its Temple, just before he died. Christians would imitate their savior by pilgrimage, but their motivation would be for reasons of personal piety. The church instead taught that there are two ways that a pilgrim grows devotionally: First, the pilgrim relives the life of Jesus through visiting the places where he lived. This sense is liturgical and is related to the Hebrew word connected with pilgrimage, hag (“keeping festival,” or literally, “going in a circle”). Second, the pilgrim metaphorically demotes this temporal life and promotes the spiritual life when he or she cuts off ties to ordinary life (home and family). This sense is related to the other Hebrew words connected with pilgrimage, gur and yasab (“sojourn” and “live as a stranger”). The fi rst sense led to an infl ux of pilgrims to the Holy Land in the fi rst few centuries of the Common Era. The names of those who journeyed include such luminaries as Melito of Sardis (160), Basil the Great of Caesarea (351), Egeria (361), the Desert Fathers and mothers (fourth century), and Jerome (386), to name a few. Such pilgrims wanted to walk in the steps of Jesus, and this motivation later made the Christian Church connect its Sunday liturgies to specifi c events in the life of Jesus and corresponding Bible readings. It induced the liturgies to involve marches and processions, which became important in later Byzantine and Latin worship. Finally, the following of Jesus’s steps persuaded Constantine the Great and his mother, Helena, to embark on a program of church and monument building that resulted in even a higher regard for the Holy Land. The second sense however became the core of asceticism and monasticism. When the persecutions of the church ended with Constantine’s Edict of Toleration, Christians took up such spiritual exercises to remind them that all of life is a brief pilgrimage and that the fi nal destination is heaven. As Bernard of Clairvaux famously put it: “Your cell is Jerusalem.” Ironically, when the Holy Lands were closed, due to Islamic restrictions, the monks became a new attraction for pilgrims who wanted to walk in their steps. MUSLIM, HINDU, AND BUDDHIST PILGRIMAGES Though Islamic pilgrimages fall outside the framework of this volume, it is necessary to point out two relevant facts. First, hajj is related to hag, and thus it is based on the same liturgical walking in the steps of religious heroes. All of the religious sites of hajj commemorate in ritualistic fashion key events in human salvation pilgrimage 357 history. Mecca is the site of divine, angelic, prophetic, and auspicious human activity since the beginning of creation. Second, it is clear that the high regard for Mecca is based on pre-Islamic reverence for such places as Arafat, Muzdalifah, Mina, and the Kaaba. All of these sites are connected with celestial and mountain deities. Two other pilgrimage groups have ancient roots: the Hindus and the Buddhists. One cannot speak about Hinduism without mention of their many holy sites in the land of India. The Sanskrit word for pilgrimage place is tirtha (water-crossing place, or ford). This word has important historical overtones, for it explains why the ancient Indus civilization sites such as Mohenjo-Daro and the Harappa are also religious pilgrimage sites. The ancient Vedic scriptures cite this river and seven other Punjab “mother rivers” in northwest India. The Hindu classics of the Bhagavad Gita, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, also detail places of religious veneration, including the Ganges River valley, that go back before the Common Era. The most popular site for Hindus unto this present day is Banaras, a northward bend in the Ganges River, where the largest concentration of tirthas are found. It is said that a devotee is certain of moksha (liberation) if he or she dies at Banaras. Nonetheless, the Hindu mystics have tried to deemphasize pilgrimage by saying that “the true Ganges is within.” Though Buddhists stress that nirvana (liberation) is achieved internally and outside of time, there is a history of pilgrimage in the religion. As far back as Ashoka, the Buddhist Indian king (270–232 b.c.e.), Buddhists were erecting stupas (shrines) to attract converts. It was felt that ultimate deliverance came from within, but interest in the religion could come only from without. Buddhist shrines tried to entice worldly people to consider religion. Ashoka’s own chronicles confi rm that he made several of his own pilgrimages and sponsored the building of stupas to increase his subjects’ interest. Undoubtedly he traveled to Bodh Gaya, the place where Gautama Buddha fi rst achieved enlightenment (sixth century b.c.e.). This place is the most important pilgrimage site for Buddhists in India. Another important voice comes from the Chinese traveler Fa Xian (Fahsien), whose fi fth-century b.c.e. journey to India testifi es to the popularity of Buddhist pilgrimages. Eventually, as Buddhism fell out of favor in India and Hinduism continued its dominance, pilgrimage sites were found in other Southeast Asian lands. As Mahayana Buddhism blossomed in China, Mount Wutai attracted many pilgrims as the place where a famous bodhisattva (angelic intermediary) fi gure, Manjusri, had his home. Even here, however, Buddhists built upon the residual Daoist belief that Mount Wutai was already holy. See also Christianity, early; Greek mythology and pantheon; Hindu philosophy; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Patriarchs, biblical; Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Further reading: Hitchcock, S. T., and J. L. Esposito. National Geographic Geography of Religion—Where God Lives, Where Pilgrims Walk. Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2004; Ousterhout, Robert, ed. The Blessings of Pilgrimage. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1990; Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips, 2002. Mark F. Whitters Platonism Platonism is the philosophy or worldview of Plato, a Greek scholar who believed in a world beyond the everyday world, a world in which things were more real and vital than the world that one typically perceives with one’s senses. Plato, who lived 427–347 b.c.e., was a citizen of Athens. Socrates, who Plato called “the most just man of our times,” taught him. Socrates claimed that he was only wiser than others in that, “I know what I do not know.” Socrates did not write anything down; it is largely through the writings of Plato that modern readers learn about Socrates. Plato attempted to defend Socrates when he was tried and put to death, but the judges were quite biased against Socrates. Following the death of Socrates, Plato traveled the known world in search of further training, studying geometry from Euclid, mystical philosophy from the Italian schools founded by Pythagoras, mathematics from the African Theodorus, and philosophy in Egypt. Eventually, he opened the Academy, outside of Athens, where he taught philosophy. Plato taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great. IDEAS (FORMS) AND PARTICULAR INSTANCES Central to Plato’s worldview is the reality of archetypal Ideas, often mistranslated as Forms. These Ideas are refl ected in our language: A fl ower is an idea, but that small sunfl ower that one steps on is a particular instance of a fl ower. The fact that we have a word for fl ower indicates that we have an abstract, archetypal concept—an Idea of a fl ower. Plato says that this idea is more real because unlike the sunfl ower, which fades and dies, the Idea of a 358 Platonism fl ower lives on. Plato does not say where Ideas are, but modern scholars clearly state that time and space do not apply to Ideas; as above, the Idea of a fl ower does not die. Though ideas are not seen in the normal way, Plato is convinced that they can be apprehended through the means of intelligence and reason. DOCTRINE OF RECOLLECTION In his Meno dialogue Plato has a Socrates character assert that we do not learn things so much as recollect them. The human spirit was trapped in a body and forgot everything but can remember it without outside help. Meno was skeptical of this, and in the dialogue, Socrates answers Meno’s skepticism by calling over an uneducated boy. Socrates clearly demonstrates that the lad lacks all training in geometry. Socrates then sets before the slave a problem involving squares, triangles, and trying to double the size of a given square. Socrates provides no information, but keeps prodding the boy to look at the problem. The boy solves the problem easily and elegantly enough that any reader can follow the steps to the solution. Scholars call this an example of a priori knowledge—knowledge that does not come from prior experience. Plato and his Socrates character assert that all humans have an innate knowledge of geometry from before birth, which can be recollected. Modern mathematics is founded upon this doctrine, that mathematics is part in the world of archetypal Ideas and can be discovered or recalled through mathematical research. • A square is only an Idea of a square, due to imperfections in the thickness of the lines, for example. • The Idea of a square is based on the Idea of a line, the Idea of a right angle, etc. • Since a human cannot see an infi nitely thin line, it is assumed that such lines exist. Geometry assumes that the Ideas of squares, lines, and points exist. • Ordinary geometry cannot exist without these basic assumptions. • The assumptions cannot be verifi ed. • If the assumptions are changed, then the entire system of geometry has to change with them. • These Ideas, called fundamental assumptions in geometry, are the most pivotal aspect of this branch of mathematics. DIVIDED LINE This concept of a divided line also relates to the Greek notion of the Golden Mean, or Extreme and Mean Ratio. Imagine a line, with points ABCDE. Let the length of CE be X times longer than the length of AC. Plato declares that AC represents all entities one can comprehend with vision. For instance, a person can see a particular rose, so it is an object in AC. CE represents all things that are comprehensible through intelligence or reason. For example, the Idea of a rose is not something seen with the eyes, but rather something that is apprehended with the heart or mind. CE is longer than AC, and in this diagram, the longer something is, the clearer it is and the easier to comprehend. X is the ratio of the length of CE to the length of AC. This would mean that things apprehended with reason are X times as understandable as those comprehended with mere vision. • Things represented in BC are the ordinary objects. • Things represented in AB are the images of these objects. For example, refl ections and shadows are images of objects that cast refl ections or shadows. Plato instructs to make sure that the length of AB is to the length of BC as AC is to CE, or BC/AB = X = CE/ AC. This is an example of the Golden Mean. Images of objects are harder to understand: It is easier to learn to type by looking at the keyboard to see where the keys are, rather than to look at the shadow of the keyboard. Similarly, it is easier to understand all objects by looking at them rather than their images, refl ections, or shadows. Now break the line CE into two parts, analogously to the division made in the visible arena: • The lower part, CD, will represent things that are mere images of the things in DE. • Things in CD will be comprehended by understanding, whereas things in DE will be comprehended by reason. And again, the lengths of CD and DE are such that DE/CD = X. In Plato’s terminology, as CD is to DE, so is BC to AB. Things in CD will be Ideas, like the Idea of a point, the Idea of the line, or the Idea of a square. To get more information about an Ideal square, a geometer draws a picture. The picture is a physical object, seen with vision, so it is in the arena represented by AC, things which are apprehended by sight. Yet one can draw the square on a piece of paper, hold it up to a mirror, and have a refl ection of the drawing. Therefore, the drawing is a thing in BC, and the refl ected image of the drawing is a thing in AB. This example can explain how to move up the ladder to Platonism 359 A B C D E plato’s divided line higher forms of comprehension. The refl ection is just an image of the paper, and to better understand the square, one can turn attention not to the refl ection, but to the paper on which the square is drawn. And if one goes beyond looking at the drawing of the square to considering the Idea of a square, it is considering a higher form of the concept by turning to the realm of the intelligence. The refl ection is a mere image of the physical object on which the square is drawn, because everything in category AB is a mere image of something in category BC. However, this physical object is a mere image of the Idea of a square. This teaches that just as everything in AB is an image of something in BC, everything in BC is an image of something in CD. Because of how the line is constructed, everything in CD is an image of something in DE, so things in each category are mere images of things in the category above. And just as it is easier to understand something by looking at the object itself than by looking at its image, it is always easier to understand the world by looking at a higher category. Plato claims it is still easier to comprehend the world by looking at the higher-level ideas in DE than the lower-level ideas in CD. The ideas in CD are mere images of the ideas in DE. The higher ideas in DE partake more directly of the Idea of goodness than do the Ideas in CD. The Ideas in CD are apprehended by reason. The Ideas of points, lines, and squares are assumptions. Therefore, when reason allows humans to see beyond these assumptions in CD to the clearer and more intelligible things above it in DE, they will achieve an understanding that transcends assumptions. The process by which reason allows a vision of the clearest things in DE is the process that Socrates uses in teaching his students: the process of dialectic. Once this amazing state of seeing the thing in DE has been achieved, one can then use this new understanding to move down the line, by fi rst creating a better assumption in CD, and then viewing the consequences of this new assumption, achieving a new and better understanding of the world. THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE Imagine a group of people born to a cave, where they are chained to stone benches so that they cannot turn around: They are forever facing one large wall of the cave. Behind them is a great bonfi re, and between the chained people and the fi re, a handful of people hide behind a partition like puppeteers and hold up things to make shadows on the wall at which the others stare. The chained people spend their lives looking at the shadows on the wall and trying to describe them. Thus, the chained people only experience the lowest things mentioned in the divided line discussion—the shadows of objects. All that the chained people know about life comes from their observations of these shadows. The chained people judge one another by their skill at quickly recognizing shadows, and they dislike people who judge poorly or take a long time to recognize the shadows. Plato then describes a process of gradual philosophical awakening. Suppose a chained person breaks free, turns around, and sees both the fi re and the people who make the shadows. Plato remarks that his eyes will initially be blinded by the fi relight, and the things he sees will appear less real than the shadows he has spent his whole life watching. But, over time the freed individual’s eyes will adjust to the fi re, and he will be able to see it and the puppets that are held up to make the shadows. Perhaps he will realize that what he has been looking at his whole life are not real things but shadows of puppets. Perhaps then the freed prisoner will ascend the long passage that leads from the underground cave to the surface. Imagine that he is compelled to do so quickly. When he arrives at the surface, the light will be too bright and will overwhelm the prisoner’s eyes. At fi rst, the prisoner will see nothing, and then perhaps he will be able to see the shadows of objects that are in the sunlight. In this upper world the shadows are images of the real objects in the sunlight; hence they are like the things represented in CD, in the discussion of the Divided Line. Plato says that in time the freed prisoner may accustom his eyes to see actual objects in the light of day and even to look at the Sun itself, and to see what the Sun is and how it moves across the sky to create the seasons. At this point the freed prisoner can begin to understand what life is and how it works, because he is contemplating the things represented in the category DE from the Divided Line discussion; he is contemplating things that can only be perceived by the true light of reason. At this point the freed prisoner becomes a philosopher. Plato notes that the freed prisoner will desire to remain in the sunlight contemplating the higher things by the light of reason, since the shadows in the cave will seem trivial to him. The newly created philosopher, understanding things by the light of reason will have no desire to discuss shadows. Yet, Plato asserts that this is exactly what is required for society to improve: The philosopher must return to the cave. No one else understands things as they really are, since everyone else is talking about shadows of puppets, and only the philosopher who understands the nature of the world can lead the people. However, Plato notes that upon returning to the cave, the philosopher will be unaccustomed to the darkness and will at fi rst perform poorly in the shadow-naming contests and 360 Platonism be unable even to see the shadows. The prisoners will laugh at the philosopher and think that his journey to the sunlight has ruined his vision. If someone else were to try to free these prisoners by showing them the fi re, they would try to kill that person rather than having their vision ruined like they believe the philosopher’s vision has been destroyed. Plato asserts that if the philosopher remains in the cave and becomes reacclimated to the darkness, the philosopher might be able to get others to the surface most quickly, and the philosopher might teach them to see in the shortest period of time. That art is the dialectic study of philosophy, which is how Socrates taught Plato and others. See also Greek oratory and rhetoric; Neoplatonism; paideia. Further reading: Hamilton, Edith, and Huntington Cairns, eds. Plato: Collected Dialogues. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985; Liddell, H. G., and Robert Scott, eds. An Intermediate Greek English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986; Peck, Harry Thurston. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1898. Joseph R. Gerber polis The polis was a city-state in ancient Greece and was a signifi cant feature of Greek civilization. Most of Greece was controlled by a polis, and they were organized with suffi cient effi ciency for the central city to administer large tracts of land. The surrounding areas were dominated by agricultural activities, and any surplus was taxed by the city, which in return provided military security and housed items of ceremonial and religious importance. In many parts of Greece, small city-states existed in close proximity of one another. The study of politics began with the management of the polis. Most Greek city-states passed through a succession of government types, starting with a hereditary king (vasileus) and moving through tyrants and oligarchs, eventually becoming democracies. Not all states passed through every form of government, and the state could even revert to what might be considered an earlier form of governance. Sparta, for example, retained its kings and its rigid military government while contending with democratic Athens during the Peloponnesian War. Those cities that tended to side with Athens or were infl uenced by it were more likely to have a democratic basis to their government. However, during the Mycenaean period, early cities were abandoned sometime around 1100–1200 b.c.e., and the people resumed living a tribal, seminomadic lifestyle. Under kings and the tyrants such as Peisistratus, members of the polis could scarcely be called citizens since they had few recognizable rights. As tyrants gave way to oligarchs, competing political interests developed a motivation to capture increasing amounts of forms of economic production and use them to reward their own followers. This may have transformed into a continued privilege that became customary in time. Citizens in functioning democracies had the greatest degree of freedom, although Greek democracy, even in Athens, bore little resemblance to modern conceptions. Only a small group of elite males, for example, was permitted to vote. The size of the polis had to be kept comparatively small so that the democratic system could reach decisions with some effi ciency. A large city would fi nd democratic norms too unwieldy and would be more likely to resort to tyranny. During the Persian invasions of 490 and 480 b.c.e., Athens provided 10 generals, each of which was to command for a single day in strict rotation. Yet, as soon as the threat became imminent, the generals voted to place one man in absolute control. Plato observed that a polis should have no more members than one man could recognize. A number of Greek commentators and philosophers wrote about the polis and its nature. Aristotle considered the polis based on the household as the unit of analysis. The household consisted of an extended family, together with servants, slaves, and clients who would be capable of contributing a signifi cant amount to the life of the polis, while the latter would provide opportunities to the household that would not be available in other governmental models. This depended on maintaining a comparatively small size for the polis, to which the household could make a noticeable contribution because increased size would have the effect of reducing the value of the household and, hence, sense of identity. It was common for people to move to a different polis, although no doubt this was impossible or very diffi - cult for some classes of society or women. Consequently, city-states competing for scarce human resources would have felt pressure to offer their citizens favorable living conditions. Moving to a polis was no guarantee of being able to partake of its benefi ts. Citizenship was variously defi ned but customarily required descent from at least one parent who was a citizen. There were periodic exceptions made to this rule, resulting most commonly from need inspired by warfare, famine, or other environmental disaster. In most cases the armored, spear-wielding polis 361 infantry (hoplites) on which city-states relied for defense were composed of citizens who were obliged to support themselves and their equipment. Naturalization of incoming people was a new development for the polis and increased identifi cation of individuals with the state. See also Athenian predemocracy; Platonism. Further reading: Kitto, H. D. F. The Greeks. New York: Penguin, 1950; Mitchell, L., ed. The Development of the Polis in Ancient Greece. New York: Routledge, 1997; Nagle, Brendan D. The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. John Walsh Pompeii and Herculaneum Pompeii and Herculaneum were two Roman towns destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 c.e. A community had existed at Pompeii, near present-day Naples, in proximity of the Sarnus River and the Bay of Naples since the eighth century b.c.e. Initially the Etruscans, then the Samnites, and fi nally the Romans controlled the prosperous trading town that was colonized and known as Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeianorum by 80 b.c.e. Mount Vesuvius, which had formed at least 17,000 years earlier, was one mile away. Pompeii endured numerous landslides due to extensive rains. A series of earthquakes, some minor, but one particularly strong one, wreaked havoc on Pompeii in 62 c.e. and caused massive structural damage to the town and its buildings. The citizens began an extensive rebuilding process in Pompeii and used richer materials for their houses and their art. Despite some volcanic rumblings and the wells drying up, the Pompeiani had no inkling of the calamitous event to follow because Mount Vesuvius had been idle for centuries. Although a few people left the city on August 24, 79 c.e., the majority of people went about their daily business. Around one o’clock in the afternoon Mount Vesuvius erupted and spewed 18–20 feet of ash and cinders that buried the town and asphyxiated and mummifi ed most of the 20,000 people in Pompeii. The intense ash clouded the Sun for several days and created a tsunami in the Bay of Naples. The volcanic debris had a temperature of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. As it fl owed for two days toward Pompeii, its temperature fell to 660ºF. The town, which had been a vacation resort for Rome’s nobility, was completely covered by ash, although not destroyed. Some survivors claimed their possessions, but there was no thought of restoration. Pompeii remained buried for the next 16 centuries. An excellent description of the event is found in The Letters of Pliny the Younger. Although some excavations were undertaken in the 16th century, the fi rst serious excavations at Pompeii took place under the patronage of King Charles VII of the Two Sicilies (r. 1735–59). His team withdrew numerous artifacts that were displayed in the National Museum in Naples. Then, from 1863 to 1875 more scientifi cally acceptable excavations under Giuseppi Fiorelli (1823–96) took place. His meticulous note taking, recording, and preservation revealed a fascinating glimpse at a Roman town. He innovated and made plaster casts of the 2,000 skeletons found in Pompeii indicating how and where they died. Some of the buildings still stand: the forum, the houses, villas, stores, bakery, baths, a huge hotel, the theaters, and amphitheater indicate a prosperous town. Numerous other excavation directors have worked on Pompeii, which was around 66 percent uncovered in 2006. Pompeii is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is visited by thousands of tourists every year. Although the Italian government has offered fi nancial incentives to the nearly 1 million citizens in the area to relocate in case Mount Vesuvius erupts again, many modern-day Pompeiani refuse to leave. Herculaneum, a small town between Pompeii and Naples, known as Ercolano since 1969, was decimated by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 c.e. The luxury town of approximately 5,000 inhabitants had suffered an earthquake in 63 c.e. After considerable rebuilding Herculaneum enjoyed a booming economy and was comprised of vacation villas, a number of restaurants, a market, and a mill. On August 24, 79 c.e., the town was obliterated by 75 feet of disastrous poisonous air, gases, lava ashes, small stones, and pumice that spewed from Mount Vesuvius and suffocated the inhabitants. Herculaneum was rediscovered in 1738 after a huge stash of impressive statues was found there. Excavations were carried on from 1738 to 1780, and tunnels were built to access the ruins. Major excavation occurred when some 1,500 workers uncovered Herculaneum from 1805 to 1815. Some 300 bodies were found during one excavation. More excavations occurred during the 19th century and revealed magnifi cent paintings and 1,803 rolls of papyri from a library that contained the works of Demetrius, Epicuris, and other famous authors. After lengthy painstaking labor some 194 of the unrolled papyri were publicized. Although some modern chemical solutions allowed for revealing the scrolls, some unfortunately could not be interpreted. During excavations in 362 Pompeii and Herculaneum the 1990s more than 200 skeletons were found on the beach. The exquisite buildings, mosaics, paintings, and art indicate that Herculaneum was materially and culturally superior to Pompeii. See also Epicureanism. Further reading: D’arms, John. Romans on the Bay of Naples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970; Ettienne, Robert. Pompeii: The Day the City Died. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1992; Harris, Robert. Pompeii. London: Arrow Books, 2003; Radice, B., trans. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. New York: Penguin, 1968; Walstein, Charles, and Leonard Schoobridge. Herculaneum, Past, Present and Future. London: Macmillan, 1908. Annette Richardson Pompey (106– 48 b.c.e.) Roman general The Roman statesman and general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was given the title “the Great” by his troops in Africa in 81 b.c.e. and later by the Roman authorities. Initially an ally of Julius Caesar, Pompey opposed Caesar’s march on Rome in 49 b.c.e., resulting in the civil war that ultimately saw Pompey dead and Caesar in control of Rome and its empire. Pompey was born on September 29, 106 b.c.e., into an important Roman family. His father was a Roman general. Pompey’s family initially supported Marius against Sulla in a struggle for control of the Roman Republic. After the death of his father he joined Sulla, taking part in the defection against Marius. The dictator Sulla gave the young general command of an army that was sent out against supporters of Marius in Sicily and Africa. In two quick campaigns in 82–81 b.c.e., Pompey destroyed the Marians. When Marcus Lepidus became consul and tried to get rid of Sulla, Pompey crushed Lepidus’s troops. He then went to Spain to fi ght supporters of Marius and scored a military triumph in his reconquest of Spain. With control over Spain, Transalpine Gaul (modern-day southern France), and Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy) he returned to a triumphal procession through Rome and was elected consul in 70 b.c.e. Pompey joined forces with Marcus Licinius Crassus, his main rival, and the two became joint consuls. Pompey then made an alliance with Julius Caesar, forming the First Triumvirate with Caesar and Crassus. It was a strong political partnership, with Pompey further cementing the union by marrying Caesar’s daughter Julia. Yet, Pompey and Caesar began to have political differences. When Crassus was killed in battle in 53 b.c.e., the triumvirate ended, leading to rioting and the burning of the senate house. The Senate called on Pompey to take over and restore law and order, and he became sole consul. Pompey reformed the legal system, particularly as the law concerned Caesar, including an attempt to have Caesar turn over control of his armies. The increasing rift between the two led to Caesar and his troops marching on Rome. Pompey retreated south, leaving Caesar to chase after him. Caesar engaged Pompey in battle at Dyrrhachium (Durrës in modern-day Albania) where Pompey’s forces triumphed. However, at a battle in Pharsalus, in modern-day Greece, Pompey was decisively defeated. Pompey again fl ed and, fi nding no options to submission to Caesar, sought refuge with Ptolemy XIII in Egypt, whose father Pompey had helped restore to the throne. Ptolemy thought that aiding the defeated Pompey would drag Egypt into war and believed it a better option to have Pompey murdered. As he approached the Egyptian shore by boat on September 28, 48 b.c.e., Pompey was killed by an offi cer who had formerly served under him, allied with Ptolemy. Pompey’s head and ring were presented to Caesar soon afterward. Caesar was said to have been disgusted by this action and later deposed Ptolemy. Pompey’s sons and supporters continued fi ghting Caesar for several more years but only delayed Julius Caesar’s inevitable control of the incipient Roman Empire. See also Cato, Marcus Porcius (the Younger). Further Reading: Greenhalgh, Peter A. L. Pompey: The Roman Alexander. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980; ———. Pompey: The Republican Prince. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1981. Justin Corfi eld Pontius Pilate (fi rst century c.e.) Roman governor Pontius Pilate was a Roman prefect who governed Judaea from 26 to 37 c.e. Pilate rose to prominence in history when in about 30 c.e. he condemned Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth to be crucifi ed. Judaean prefects had command over fi ve to six auxiliary military cohorts (each consisting of 500 to 1,000 soldiers), which provided tactical support to the legion stationed in Syria. There were 25 legions (each consisting of 6,000 soldiers) in the Roman Empire. As a governor, however, Pilate also had administrative, judicial, and fi scal responsibilities, since Pontius Pilate 363 the main job of a Roman governor was to ensure the uninterrupted fl ow of tax revenues to the Roman treasury. The Roman governors of Judaea lived in Caesarea and traveled to Jerusalem only at the major religious feasts. The fi gure of Pilate is somewhat shrouded in mystery not only because so little is known about him but because the Gospels and Jewish sources are at odds with each other in their portrayals of him. The four New Testament Gospels give the impression that he was a weak fi gure whom the Jewish authorities manipulated into executing Jesus. According to Philo and Josephus, however, he was a cruel and arrogant man, who, rather than being manipulated by the Jews, did much to agitate them. For example, he set up either shields or standards in Jerusalem to honor the emperor Tiberius, which triggered a bitter protest among the Jews. He also took sacred funds from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct. When a large crowd of Jews showed up in Jerusalem to protest his action, he put down the protest with brutal violence. Pilate perpetrated these and other acts of provocation fully aware that they would offend Jewish sensitivities. So, the question is how to account for the two disparate pictures of Pilate in the Gospels and the Jewish sources. Three basic theories have been advanced to solve this problem. According to the fi rst theory, the reason Pilate suddenly changed his behavior at the trial of Jesus was that his enormously powerful patron, Sejanus, commander of the Roman Praetorian Guard (a cohort providing armed protection to the emperor and his family), had been executed in 31 c.e., and Pilate felt the need to alter his conduct toward the Jewish authorities, whom his earlier actions had offended. However, the historical evidence behind this neat theory is ambiguous at best. For example, the coins struck by Pilate before 31 c.e. do not carry images that were particularly offensive to the Jews. If Pilate had indeed wanted to offend Jewish sensibilities in the years preceding the death of Sejanus, he would certainly have put more offensive images on the coins, such as those of Roman deities. According to the second theory, the Gospel writers falsifi ed the historical facts to put the blame on the Jews in hopes of appeasing Rome. The problem with this theory is that the Jewish sources may be just as biased as the Gospels. According to the third theory, rather than being manipulated by the Jewish authorities, Pilate, ever a cunning and cruel bargainer, was exploiting the occasion to manipulate the crowds and the Jewish authorities into pledging their allegiance to the Caesar. It appears, however, that the change in Pilate’s behavior must have been due at least in part also to the extraordinary presence and demeanor of Jesus, which, according to the Gospels, had power to disarm and overwhelm his opponents. According to later Christian traditions, Pilate, having been impressed by Jesus, eventually converted to Christianity. See also Bible translations; Jewish revolts; Rome: government. Further reading: Carter, Warren. Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989; Bond, Helen K. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. P. Richard Choi pre-Socratic philosophy The pre-Socratics were Greek philosophers who speculated about the nature of the world for more than 150 years before Socrates fl ourished. Their philosophizing about nature sought answers to questions that were metaphysical and scientifi c, although these disciples were not then separated. The metaphysical questions asked by the pre-Socratics were inquiries into the ultimate nature of everything. Their questions included What is the beginning (arche) or source of all things? What is reality and what is only appearance? What is everything made of? Is it one “stuff” or many “stuffs?” This last question is now called the problem of “the one and the many.” Other problems addressed by the pre-Socratics included the nature of change, of being, of becoming, and quantity. The great importance of the pre-Socratics lies in their speculative use of reason without reference to myths, authorities, religion, popular opinion, or other sources of knowledge. They used reason to supply answers about the metaphysical nature of the universe. In doing so they initiated a great philosophical conversation that applies human reason to the quest to understand everything. The pre-Socratics were a varied group of thinkers, but all were Greeks. They lived and worked in widely scattered locations. Most of their writings were lost in antiquity. Fragments, along with testimonia (what was reported by other writers as direct quotations or as summaries of their thought), have survived that give a general picture of their thought. The fi rst school of the pre-Socratics was the Ionian school. These Ionian Greeks produced the Milesian school and two independent philosophers. MILESIAN SCHOOL The fi rst Greek philosopher, according to Aristotle, was Thales (c. 624–545 b.c.e.). He was counted as one of the legendary Seven Sages and the founder of the 364 pre-Socratic philosophy Milesian school. His polis (city-state), Miletus, was located on the southwestern coast of what is now Turkey. Thales is noted for predicting an eclipse of the Sun in 585 b.c.e. More important, he explained why the eclipse would occur, saying that it would occur when the Moon passed between the Sun and the Earth. The Moon would consequently block the rays of the Sun and would cast its shadow on the Earth until it moved on in its orbit around the Earth. This explanation was a naturalistic explanation. It did not rely on the religious mythopoeic explanations of gods, demons, or other spiritual forces that abounded in the beliefs of that time. This explanation is counted as the beginning of Western philosophy. It served as a corrective to the poetic views of Homer, Hesiod, and other Greek poets. Thales, in a search for the ultimate unity of the cosmos, pondered the question What is everything made of? His answer was water. This seemed to be a plausible answer because much of the surface of the Earth is covered with water; water comes in solid, liquid, and gaseous states, and water is the basis of life on Earth. However, the answer, while wrong, is valuable because it can be “falsifi ed.” Answers to questions that can neither be proven as true or false have little value. Those that can be falsifi ed shut the door to further research in that area and direct inquiry to other areas. Thales’s immediate follower was Anaximander (c. 610–545 b.c.e.), the second member of the Milesian school. Anaximander speculated that the basic “stuff” of the cosmos was not water. Instead, he reasoned it was an odorless, colorless, weightless substance that he called “the boundless” (aperion). His thought was that aperion was the arche, or source of all things, and it was infi nite in supply. His answer also initiated “philosophical criticism” because it was a reasoned analysis of the speculations of Thales. For Anaximander all particular things such as earth, air, fi re, and water had been spun out of the whirling mass of the boundless. These particulars were in constant warfare with each other. This viewpoint presented a primitive form of the idea of evolution. However, his view of “evolution” was cyclical. He argued that the continual change in the cosmos was part of a cycle of creation and destruction. By adding time to his speculative ideas he was able to express a cyclical view of history. In addition, by using reasoning about the unseen ultimate nature of the cosmos he introduced a primitive rationalist method. Anaximenes (c. 560–28 b.c.e.) was the third member of the Milesian school. He was a younger contemporary of Anaximander. He rejected the speculation of Anaximander that aperion is the basic stuff of the universe. He reasoned that the answer is of limited use because there is too little that can be known about a stuff that is “unbounded.” Agreeing with Anaximander that the basic stuff should be eternal, unlimited, and at the same time a singular “stuff,” and using the criterion of clarity, Anaximenes declared that all thing are derived from air. When this assertion is compared to the gaseous state of the universe immediately after the “big bang,” when all matter everywhere was stripped to protons, his answer can be viewed as surprisingly modern. INDEPENDENT IONIAN PHILOSOPHERS The fi rst of the independent Ionian philosophers was Heraclitus of Ephesus (fl . c. 500 b.c.e.). He is known as the philosopher of fl ux because he asserted that everything is changing and that the only thing that does not change is change itself. He is famous for the saying “I can step into a river once, but I cannot step into the same river twice.” This means that the basic characteristic of the cosmos is “becoming.” Everything is constantly becoming something else. Heraclitus taught that the basic “stuff” is fi re. He went beyond physical fi re to argue that the fi re was a divine reason, or logos, that was constantly in motion. He used the metaphor of law courts to include a moral vision to his philosophy. The cosmos is constantly changing, but there is a pattern such that “justice” (dike) seeks to establish a balance. Constantly, if there is an “offense” it must be balanced. This vision of the world was to greatly infl uence adam smith’s vision of the “harmony” (harmonia or concordia) of the marketplace that is controlled by an “invisible hand.” Xenophanes (c. 560–470 b.c.e.) of Colophon (located 40 miles north of Miletus) is included among the Ionians, but Aristotle placed him among the Eleatics. He lived for a time in Sicily and at Elea, where he may have founded Eleatic philosophy. Xenophanes’ contribution to philosophy was a radical critique of popular Greek religion, specifi cally the works of Homer (Iliad and Odyssey) and Hesiod (Theogony). The Greeks were polytheists with the Olympian gods serving as the public state gods. For Xenophanes the Olympian gods lacked moral inspiration and were shameful. His critique began the philosophy of religion. Xenophanes was neither an atheist nor an agnostic but believed in one god that was greater than any other and who was utterly different. He also accepted the common ancient belief that order was the sign of intelligence that ultimately was divine. All of the Ionian pre-Socratic philosophers were materialistic monists. As metaphysical monists their pre-Socratic philosophy 365 claim was that the basic “stuff” of the cosmos was a single material substance (monism). PYTHAGORAS Pythagoras (c. 570–495 b.c.e.) was a monist, but in contrast to the materialism of the Ionians, he was an idealist (or immaterialist). Pythagoras is classifi ed as a member of the Italian school of pre-Socratic philosophers. According to legend, one day Pythagoras walked by the blacksmith’s shop and heard the tones of different hammers beating on the anvil. He went home and worked with notes produced by different lengths of string. From his experiments he concluded that the basic stuff of the universe is numbers. It was in effect a discovery of quantity—every physical thing in the cosmos has quantity associated with it. Pythagoras organized a school that was more of a mathematical cult, open to both men and women. The Pythagorean school fl ourished, and eventually the Pythagoreans took control of several city-states. The greatest success of Pythagoras in mathematics was the Pythagorean formula (A2 + B2 = C2). The formula says that the sum of the squares of the lengths of the sides of a right-angled triangle is equal to the square of its hypotenuse. All went well until it was discovered that if sides A and B of a triangle were equal in length, then the resulting square root would be an “irrational” number. When news of hypotenuses with irrational numbers leaked out of the inner circle of Pythagoreans, it meant that the Pythagorean belief that everything could be rationally comprehended by mathematics was fl awed. The natives rose up in revolt and attacked the Pythagoreans. In the violent turmoil Pythagoras fl ed for his life, but coming upon a bean fi eld he stopped and would not cross it because he believed that beans were sinful. He was soon caught and killed, but the teachings of the Pythagorean school lived on. ELEATIC SCHOOL The city-state of Elea, south of Naples on the western Italian peninsula, was the home of the Eleatic school of pre-Socratics. The fi rst of these was Parmenides, whose method was rationalistic. He challenged the claim of Heraclitus that everything was in fl ux. For Parmenides (515–c. 450 b.c.e.) the basic “stuff” of the cosmos is being. Everything that exists “is.” It has the property of “isness” because it “exists.” This is in contrast to not being or “no-thingness” (nothingness). For Parmenides change was an illusion. If a thing exists then it “is,” and if it “is,” then it cannot both be and not be at the same time by somehow being and then changing to become something else. Parmenides’ argument is a radical affi rmation of being. As a rationalist, Parmenides argued for “the Way of Truth” and rejected “the Way of Opinion.” The second of the Eleatics was Zeno of Elea (c. 470 b.c.e.). He is famous for paradoxes he posed to demonstrate that change is an illusion. Some of his paradoxes are about the experience of motion. They seek to demonstrate that belief in motion entraps those who believe in motion as a form of change into an impossible contradiction. His paradoxes included “The Stadium,” “The Runner, “The Race between Achilles and the Tortoise” and “The Arrow.” The goal of each paradox was to lead opponents into a reductio ád absurdum in which motion was seen as a confused condition of life. The Pluralists are those pre-Socratic philosophers who claimed that the basic stuff of the cosmos were many. This school includes two independent thinkers, most notably Empedocles and Anaxagoras. Empedocles (c. 495–435 b.c.e.) fl ourished in Sicily. Ancient legend says that he ended his life by jumping into the crater of Mount Etna. For Empedocles the basic “stuff” of the universe is plural. Specifi cally everything is made of earth, air, fi re, and water. Aristotle agreed with his views and spread them widely. “On Nature” and “Purifi cations” are two poems by Empedocles and are the longest surviving works of the pre-Socratics. The thought of Parmenides infl uenced Empedocles in several ways. For both men reality was a complete plenum. There is, in their view, a plenitude of being in the cosmos so that there are no gaps where there is “nothing.” They also agreed that nothing comes into existence nor goes out of existence. Nor do things move in empty space. Empedocles is reported by the ancients as having found fossils in the high mountains of Sicily. He concluded that life began in the sea. His poem “On Nature” presents a proto-evolutionary view of the development of the world in which the four elements of the universe— earth, air, fi re, and water—are combined and destroyed by the forces of love and strife. For Empedocles random combinations create the world cycle. However, he also believed that there was a god of the process. He held it to be a fl ashing sacred mind that infl uenced the cosmos with rapid thought of its divine mind. Anaxagoras (c. 500–428 b.c.e.) was from Clazomenae in Asia Minor. He taught in Athens and for a short time taught Socrates. Questionable sources say that he was convicted of teaching impiety by declaring that the Sun was a red-hot rock. Unlike Socrates, who would be executed some year later on a similar charge of impiety, Anaxagoras was exiled from Athens because of the intervention of Pericles, his former student. Anaxagoras reworked the thought of Empedocles. He rejected the 366 pre-Socratic philosophy idea that the four basic elements are earth, air, fi re, and water, which combine and disintegrate due to the forces of love and strife. Instead, he asserted that there was an infi nite variety of minute “seeds” that are the basis for all of the variety of things in the world. Moreover, many new combinations of the seeds create the myriad objects in the world because of the actions of an orderly divine mind, or nous in Greek. ATOMISTS The fi nal school of Pluralists was the Atomists: Leucippus (c. fi fth century b.c.e.) of Elea or Miletus, and Democritus (c. 460–370 b.c.e.) of Abdera. Little is known of Leucippus, who may have studied with Zeno. It is believed that Democritus studied with Leucippus, and scholars believe that their teachings were essentially the same. Democritus taught that if he took a rock or some material and crushed it until it was no longer cut-able, then he would have “a-tome.” The Greek word tome means “to cut,” and the prefi x a- means “un-.” The result of the cutting of a thing to its uncut-able state would be an atomos, or in the plural, atomoi. Modern atoms are taken from this ancient idea but are qualitatively different. Democritus was a pluralist. For him there were in the cosmos a myriad of different atomoi. Some were small and smooth like small ball bearings, others were sticky like Velcro, while others were rough with hooks, or others very tiny and dissipated quickly like perfume. For Democritus even the gods were made of atoms moving in the vortex of the cosmos, which appeared to the ancients as the Milky Way. Two implications of this materialist pluralism were a denial of the eternity of the gods and the denial of punishment in an afterlife. For Democritus material things in the cosmos had been created by the myriad atomoi combining as they moved in the vortex. The “furniture” of the cosmos (which for the Greeks included everything that is) was the result of accidental “makings” caused by the bumping together and the separation of the myriad different atomoi, which produced and by separating destroyed the world. Furthermore, the atomoi moved in empty space that was not “nothing” as Parmenides had taught, but a “no-thing” in empty space. In this way Democritus distinguished between a void in which there are no material bodies and nothingness, which is the total absence of space and any body as well. The implications were that souls were atoms that quickly dissipated and that the gods would go in their turn as well. Hence, there would be no eternal survival of the soul and no judgment in a life to come. At the end of the era of the pre-Socratics no solution had been found that was a conclusive analysis of the nature of the cosmos. Their work would be utilized by both Plato and Aristotle in their struggles against the Sophists. See also Greek city-states; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric; Platonism; sophism. Further reading: Burt, B. C. A Brief History of Greek Philosophy. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1889; Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925; Fideler, David, ed. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988; Guthrie, W. K. C. The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle. New York: Harper and Row, 1975; Hussey, Edward. The Pre-Socratics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972; Kingsley, Peter. Ancient Philosophy Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Long, A. A., ed. Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofi eld. The Presocratic Philosophers. London: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Andrew J. Waskey prophets Both Jewish and Christian traditions regard the Bible as a divinely inspired book in and through which God reveals to human beings what they could not know of themselves. This revelation came chiefl y through the prophets, privileged men and women to whom and through whom God spoke. Because of their access to this revelation they carried great authority and at times exercised as decisive an infl uence on the course of Israel’s history as did the kings and rulers. THE HISTORY OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL The fi rst person referred to as a prophet is Abraham, the Patriarch of Israel, and prophets appear throughout the history narrated by the writers of the Bible. However, the prophets are not a uniform phenomenon; they differ greatly in their manner of prophesying, in their role among the people of Israel, and in the signifi cance accorded them by the biblical writers. The origin of prophecy among the Israelites is obscure. Although both Abraham and Moses are referred to as prophets, because of their role as intermediaries between God and Israel, prophet is only one of the many titles given them in the Bible, and they are not commonly called prophets. Generations later, a few fi gures are referred prophets 367 to as prophets in the very early days of Israel’s settlement in Canaan (such as Deborah and an unnamed prophet in the book of Judges), but prophets as a distinct religious phenomenon fi rst appear clearly with Samuel, the great leader of Israel. Samuel was a judge in Israel, that is, a ruler or political leader of the people, but he became a judge because he received revelation from God, by which he was able to establish his leadership. Here we see clearly for the fi rst time the most distinctive trait of the prophets—the capacity to receive revelation from God, to receive the word of the Lord and make it known. But Samuel was not the only prophet in Israel at that time. The biblical book of Samuel also refers to “bands of prophets” whose nature and role is very obscure. These prophets gathered in groups under a master and engaged in “ecstatic” religious worship. But in spite of great academic interest in the nature and identity of these bands of prophets, little is known of them. Immediately after the time of Samuel, Nathan and Gad appear as prophets, not as leaders or rulers themselves, as Abraham, Moses, Deborah, and Samuel had been, but rather are attached to the court of King David as advisers. They gave their counsel not only in religious matters but in military and political concerns as well. The advice they give is not always presented as the word of the Lord, but they were valued as advisers because what they said was not simply their advice but rather revelation of God’s will. In the period after David’s kingship the prophets become increasingly important in the life of Israel. They appear frequently in the histories known as Kings and Chronicles and are often involved in confl ict with the rulers over religious matters or in the confl icts between rulers. Their authority derives from their privileged access to the word of the Lord, that is, the knowledge of what God is doing or is going to do, and the encounters between prophets and kings or between prophets were often tense and dramatic. The outstanding fi gures of this period are Elijah and Elisha, of whom many stories of miraculous activity are recorded and who were deeply involved in the political confl icts of their time. Like Samuel, Elijah and Elisha are closely associated with the obscure bands of prophets, sometimes referred to as “the sons of the prophets.” Both Elijah and Elisha were engaged in confl ict with rulers of Israel (such as Ahab) over religious matters. These rulers sought to introduce in Israel various forms of Canaanite worship, and Elijah and Elisha used their prophetic authority to oppose replacement of the worship of Israel’s God with worship of other gods. In the history told by the writers of the Bible this clash with idolatry was the classic struggle of many of the later prophets. The words and deeds of all of these earlier prophets are accessible to us through writings that took shape long after the times of the prophets. Possibly these accounts are based on writings preserved and passed on by the bands of prophets, but if so we now have only the much later written accounts. But in the period just before the invasions of both the northern and southern kingdoms (Israel and Judah) by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, prophets appeared whose words were recorded more extensively and are passed on in the books referred to as “the later prophets,” or “the writing prophets,” that is, the books from Isaiah to Malachi, each bearing the name of an individual prophet. These books are sometimes referred to as the “major prophets”—the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel—and the “minor prophets”—the books of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Although the dates and circumstances in which these prophets appeared are in many cases diffi cult to determine precisely, their activities focus on the great crises that led to the overthrow of both the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judah). The work of the earliest of these writing prophets is usually dated about the middle of the eighth century b.c.e. (750 b.c.e.). Most of their prophecy is directed toward Israel, warning that failure to remain faithful to Israel’s God will result in personal and national catastrophe. But there are also collections of sayings directed to other nations, often promising retribution for having opposed the nation of Israel. In the end the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom (c. 721 b.c.e.), and later the Babylonians conquered the southern kingdom (the beginning of the sixth century b.c.e.). The prophets who witnessed these events interpreted them as punishment of Israel for idolatry and failure to keep the law that God had given. The dates of some of the prophetic books are disputed, but the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, and Zechariah at least were written in the period after the Babylonian conquest. The tone and message of these books is dramatically different from that of the prophets who were active before the great crisis. These later prophets bring messages of hope and consolation for the survivors of the national disaster. After the time of the restoration of Jerusalem in the fi fth century b.c.e. no great prophets appear, and it is common to say that prophecy ceased in Israel. However, the existence or absence of prophecy during this later period is a matter of debate. 368 prophets The preaching and teaching of the prophets covered a wide range of concerns and varied from prophet to prophet and through time. The activity and pronouncements of the earliest prophets often dealt with political concerns because for them the life of the nation of Israel was very much the concern of Israel’s God. They also were deeply involved with the monotheism of Israel as it was being shaped in its earliest stages. As time went on these themes remained important, but the prophets’ concerns broadened. The teaching of the prophets covered these major themes: true worship of God and avoidance of idolatry; obedience to the Torah, both personally and in the conduct of government; interpretation of historical events as God’s action; the expectation of a future glorious kingdom for Israel; concern for the welfare of the poor and helpless; and God’s dealing with neighboring nations, especially as a consequence of how they treated Israel. TRUE AND FALSE PROPHESY The prophets claimed that they were speaking on behalf of God, and that bold claim led naturally to the question of how one determined whether the claim was true or false. Prophets also disagreed with one another and at times had sharp confrontations, each claiming that he had the word of the Lord and that his opponent was either deceived or a deceiver. Some simple tests for determining the genuineness of prophecy are presented in the Jewish Bible; and the prophet Jeremiah, in his confl ict with the prophet Hananiah, introduces an interesting criterion (Jer. 28:8–9), but these tests are diffi cult to apply, and confl ict between prophets was common. CHRISTIAN PROPHETS While it is clear that there were people considered prophets in the times of the early church (cf. Acts 21:9, 10, 1 Cor. 12–14), the primary interest of the writers of the New Testament was in the Jewish Bible prophets and what they said as it applied to Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth. Very little of what the early Christians prophets said is recorded, and they did not play the dominant role their counterparts played in the Jewish Bible history. Very little is said of Christian prophets after the time of the New Testament, in fact, so little that until recently it was widely thought that Christian prophets disappeared after the fi rst century c.e. However, in 1873 a manuscript was discovered in Constantinople that turned out to be very signifi cant for the study of Christian origins. This manuscript, the Didache as it is now called, appeared to demonstrate the activity of Christian prophets in the early decades of the second century and sparked a renewed interest in the phenomenon of Christian prophecy. Scholarly and popular interest in the topic has produced a fl ood of books and articles since the middle of the 20th century, but while much has been learned about the presence and activity of prophets in early Christianity, there is little consensus about the nature of early Christian prophecy. See also Babylon, later periods; Judaism, early (heterodoxies). Further reading: Forbes, Christopher. Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment. Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995; Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets. New York: HarperCollins, 2001; Linblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962; Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1965. Bruce T. Yocum Psalms The book of Psalms is actually a collection of fi ve books, each of which ends with a note of praise. It is found in the jewish bible or Old Testament. Known as “the book of praises” in Jewish tradition, almost every composition in it is suffused with praise, culminates in praise, or anticipates offering praise to the national deity of Israel. A doxology closes book 1 (Psalms 1–41), book 2 (Psalms 42–72), book 3 (Psalms 73–89), and book 4 (Psalms 90–106). Several psalms of praise close book 5 (Psalms 107–150). In the Psalms the chief calling of God is to respond to the needs of his creatures. The chief calling of his creatures is to offer him praise and spread abroad his greatness. MULTIPLE ORIGINS Psalms manuscripts recovered from the caves of Qumran demonstrate that the book of Psalms as passed on to posterity by rabbinic Judaism is not identical in content and arrangement to psalms collections in existence before the standardization of the biblical text of the second half of the fi rst century c.e. For example, 11QPsa, dated c. 50 c.e., contains compositions previously unknown, psalms appended to the standardized collection in Greek and Syriac but absent from the Masoretic Psalter, and many of the psalms in books 4 and 5 of the Masoretic Psalter (used by rabbinic Judaism) but not in the same order. The existence of once separate collections is also evidenced by the Psalms 369 inclusion of the same psalm in more than one collection (for example Psalm 14 is the same as Psalm 53). Psalms 42–83 evidence the complexity of the compositional history of the Psalter, in which a generic term for God (Elohim) takes the place of the name of the deity (Yahweh). As elsewhere in ancient Hebrew poetry, semantic, prosodic, syntactic, morphological, and sonic parallelisms recur across verses, lines, and groups of lines in the psalms and give the psalms their characteristic stamp. A common rhetorical style and vocabulary and similar forms of expression mark the psalms. They share a common understanding of the obligating relationship that binds deity to a nation and king and a common set of expectations regarding the role of the king, the role of the temple, the conduct of war, and the logical precedence of acts of justice relative to acts of piety. Many of these understandings and expectations are refl ected in hymns and prayers of other ancient Near Eastern literatures. In a few cases it can be shown that a psalm closely follows a non-Israelite model that originally involved a deity other than Yahweh. Examples are Psalms 20, 29, and 104. PSALMS FOR DAVID AND SOLOMON Comments were added to the headings of some psalms so as to situate them in the life of David as known from other sources. Psalm 18 is a unique example because it is found with minor variations in 2 Samuel 22 as an inset in the narrative of David’s life. Psalms unlikely to have been intended for use by a Davidide were labeled as “for” David or “for” Solomon because they were designed to be recited to the king by another (20, 21, 72), because they seem apt in the king’s mouth (124, 127, 131, and 133), or because they make reference to him (122). Psalms 73–89, book 3 of the Psalter, present themselves as another collection of psalms meant for the Davidide king and the Temple singers. Psalms 74 and 79 are the fi rst psalms in the Psalter that clearly date to a time after the destruction of the First Temple, the time of the exile of the sixth century b.c.e. Psalms 90–150, books 4 and 5 of the Psalter, include a few psalms for the Davidide king from First Temple times (101, 108–110, 138–145), but themes, language, and theology suggest a date in early Second Temple times (late sixth–fi fth century b.c.e.) for the majority of the psalms in them. A date for the hymns to Yahweh’s kingship (93, 95–99) is suggested by a superscript to 96 in the ancient Greek translation: “when the house [Temple] was being rebuilt after captivity.” They are prefaced by prayer and prophecy attributed to Moses (90, 91) and an introductory hymn of praise (92). Psalms 102, 105–107, and 137 are clearly postexilic. Psalms 111– 117 and 145–150 are collections of psalms that begin and end with Hallelujah, meaning “Praise Yah(weh)!” Psalms 120–134 is a collection of “songs of ascent” of diverse origins intended to be sung by pilgrims as they approached the Temple in festival seasons. As alluded to above, the “I” of many of the psalms is plausibly understood to be that of the Davidide king. The relationship of national deity to king is very close and is fraught with privileges and obligations. See Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 60, 72, 89, 101, 108, 110, 132, and 144. Yahweh is bound by oath to the king who rules in Jerusalem, and Mount Zion in Jerusalem is Yahweh’s earthly seat. Zion as the seat of Yahweh’s earthly presence is celebrated in several psalms (46, 48, 76, 84, 87, and 122). The end of the Davidic dynasty, the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple, and the consequent experience of exile and national humiliation are the theme of other psalms (74, 79, 89, 102, 105–107, 137, 147, and 149). Precisely from the point of view of many psalms it might appear that history had dealt a mortal blow to Israel’s faith. EXILE AND COMMUNAL PRAYER But the theological resources of Israelite faith overcame these devastating events. The tradition of communal prayer in times of national humiliation was not dependent on the “I” of the king. See Psalms 44, 74, 79, 80, 83, 85, 89, 94, 106, 123, 126, and 137, where the “I” behind the “we” is either a Temple singer or a common worshipper who identifi es with the whole community (cf. Lamentations 1–5). A single hymn celebrating the kingship of Yahweh is preserved from the First Temple period (47). In the psalm collection whose contents derive largely from the Second Temple period (90–150), hymns celebrating Yahweh as king and judge of all the earth, God of gods, and shepherd and redeemer of Israel are copious and occupy key positions (Psalms 93–100, 135, 136, and 146–150). An earthly king has no role in these psalms. Yahweh remains great in Zion, but now the roles of Moses, Aaron, and Samuel are celebrated (Psalm 99). Hope of a restoration of the Davidic dynasty is not dead (note Psalm 132 among the songs of ascent), but a theology and piety develop in which a Davidic hope is not central. See Psalms 146 and 147, which build on 145 and a long tradition of understanding the locus of the divine presence on Earth as a place of refuge for the poor and needy. That understanding is now disjoined from the concept of the king as God’s viceroy (contrast Psalm 72). The community as a whole is now implied to be God’s viceroy on Earth. 370 Psalms The impact on culture of the thought and poetry of the psalms is almost immeasurable and extends well beyond the realm of religion narrowly defi ned to include literature, music, drama, law, civil religion, and statecraft wherever Judaism and Christianity are or have been potent cultural factors. The role of the psalms in Jewish and Christian liturgy and in the personal piety of believers is pervasive. The recitation of Psalms 113–118 and 145– 150 in Jewish liturgical practice is very ancient. Many other psalms were added from the beginning of the Islamic period on for daily or Sabbath use. In the daily and Sunday readings of Catholic and more ecumenical practice, some 130 of the 150 psalms appear once or more every three years, following traditions hallowed by use in the monastic movements of the Middle Ages and before. The impact on culture of the thought and poetry of the psalms is almost immeasurable and extends well beyond the realm of religion narrowly defi ned to include literature, music, drama, law, civil religion, and statecraft wherever Judaism and Christianity are or have been potent cultural factors. See also Bible translations; Christianity, early; Israel and Judah; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Syriac culture and church. Further reading: Abegg, Martin, et al. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1999; Berlin, Adele, and Mark Zvi Brettler, eds. “Psalms: Introduction and Annotations.” In The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; Gillingham, Susan E. The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. “Psalms.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck, et al. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996; Sarna, Nahum M. Songs of the Heart: An Introduction to the Book of Psalms. New York: Schocken, 1993. John Hobbins Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha The Pseudepigrapha refer to Jewish writings that are not included in the Jewish scriptures. These writings are often promulgated under the assumed pen names of famous biblical heroes. They were composed before or at the time of the New Testament, so they help to explain the background to the New Testament. Biblical books that did not come into the Jewish scriptures but are in the Greek (Septuagint) Bible are called the Apocrypha—and also called by Catholic and Orthodox Christians “Deuterocanonical.” The New Testament Apocrypha refer to the books written by Christians (often under pen names) that are not accepted into the Bible, though they are written after the New Testament and help to explain the development of church teachings. In short there are three types of literature considered here, and they have varying degrees of authority and relationship with the Bible. The Pseudepigrapha can be divided into two categories according to the parts of the ancient world from which they emerged. The fi rst is of Palestinian origin, and the second is of Hellenistic Jewish origin. Within both categories are several types of literature, such as poetry, testament, and apocalypse. Among the Palestinian writings are the Odes of Solomon, perhaps of the late fi rst century c.e., a collection of psalms and prayers, supposedly penned by King Solomon, that speak about the messianic kingdom of God. A testament is a type of literature that is based on a deathbed statement by a biblical hero. A couple of examples of this type are the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, consisting of Jacob’s last words to his sons; and the Testament of Job that Job supposedly delivered to his second wife and his two daughters before he died. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs probably goes back to the second century b.c.e., with later interpolations that appeared perhaps 200 years later. The Testament of Job may go back to a strict Jewish sect of 100 b.c.e. By far the most important composition is the book of Enoch, an apocalyptic work found in the Qumran caves as well as in other ancient caches. There are fi ve sections of Enoch: the fi rst consists of future judgment, even of the angels; the second is called the “Similitudes,” and it deals with future judgment and the messianic hope; the third is an astronomical book for the calendar; the fourth deals with past history, including the primordial deluge; the fi fth, called the “Apocalypse of Weeks,” is a collection of apocalyptic and miscellaneous material. Enoch may have had some degree of authority among sects of Jews before the birth of Jesus and thus was read like a book of the Bible. Two important apocalypses are worth mentioning: the Apocalypse of Ezra (or 4 Ezra) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (or 2 Baruch). Both of these works have to do with the malaise of the Jews after the debacle of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. and probably were written before 100 c.e. They offer consolation to Jews who feel that history has no purpose and tell of the coming age of fulfi llment. Among the many Hellenistic Jewish works, space allows only a discussion of the Sibylline Oracles. These imitate the Greek oracles that operated in the Mediterranean Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha 371 Greco-Roman world, such as the Delphic oracle. Written around 140 c.e. they lay out a structure of history, the coming of a Jewish messiah, and the judgment of the nations. The Pseudepigrapha are written after the voices of prophecy had ended and before the New Testament and hence are often referred to as intertestamental literature. They are fi lled with apocalyptic revelations that are supposed to fortify Jewish resolve to endure the hardships of the Greco-Roman world. Often they speak of a transcendent messiah-like fi gure and a future age of fulfi llment for the Jewish people, and these ideas are somewhat different from those of biblical prophecy. Yet, even though they are not books of the Bible, the New Testament often adopted their language and concepts. Apocrypha means “hidden things” and refers to materials that show an otherwise unknown side of the Bible. The Apocrypha, or deuterocanonical writings, are biblical for many Christians. They are books and parts of biblical books that are in the Bible that Greekspeaking Jews used, yet they are not in the Bible that Jews eventually accepted as the offi cial text. There are 12 or more books or parts of books that were not in the offi cial text. Protestant Christians follow the offi - cial text, but many of the Apocrypha have been found among the ancient manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, bolstering the argument that even the Jews of Palestine must have known and used the Apocrypha. These books include 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Daniel, Additions to Esther, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and the books of the Maccabees. The New Testament Apocrypha include Christianinspired works that are modeled on New Testament books. The most important of these materials are “gospels,” because they give a perspective on the four Gospels of the Bible. Some are fragmentary gospels gleaned from the writings of the fathers of the church (such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazoreans, and Gospel of the Ebionites); others are recently discovered from such places as Nag Hammadi and Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. Many of these latter gospels show an unfamiliar, perhaps Gnostic, Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth, and the date of their writing often cannot be determined. They show the life of Jesus in formats emphasizing such things as his childhood, his sayings, and his afterlife dialogues. Other apocryphal gospels are discounted because they do not exist in ancient manuscripts, but they may have some claim for early roots. These include the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocryphon of James, and the Gospel of Peter. Nongospel apocryphal writings are less helpful for New Testament studies, including the pseudo-Pauline letters, the “acts” of various apostles, and various apocalypses. Many of these types of writings show defi nite late and Gnostic tendencies. Whether these apocryphal materials refl ect the “true beliefs” of the early church or affected the New Testament is unknown. Some of the strongest voices asserting the authenticity of these writings minimize the later Gnostic infl uences in the very areas where such texts have been found. The New Testament Apocrypha of these areas might be Gnostic editions or perhaps complete Gnostic fabrications. See also apocalypticism, Jewish and Christian; Christian Dualism (Gnosticism); Christianity, early; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early; messianism; prophets. Further reading: Charlesworth, J. H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. New York: Doubleday, 1983; Hennecke, E., and W. Schneemelcher. New Testament Apocrypha. Westminster, UK: John Knox Press, 1991. Mark F. Whitters Ptolemies One of Alexander the Great’s conquests in the eastern Mediterranean was Egypt. On Alexander’s death his empire broke up for lack of a suitable designated successor. Ptolemy (367–283 b.c.e.), a trusted general under Alexander, had counseled that the empire be divided into a series of satrapies, each under the control of a leading general. The alternative, he believed, would be anarchy or warfare between the Macedonians. Ptolemy took control of Egypt, establishing a dynasty of Ptolemies that lasted for nearly 300 years until the death of Cleopatra VII, who died in 30 b.c.e., after which Egypt was incorporated as a province of the Roman Empire. Ptolemy I took the name of Soter and set about establishing a formidable, independent Hellenistic state. He improved methods of administration and captured territories, adding to Arabia and Libya, which were already within the satrapy of Egypt. These territories included Cyprus and parts of Cyrenaica and Syria. Ptolemy was drawn into warfare with Perdiccas in Asia Minor as one of the Diadochi to Alexander. During the subsequent reallocation of satrapies, Antipater of Macedon was named as regent of Alexander’s empire, and Ptolemy strengthened his possessions by marrying Eurydice, the daughter of Antipater. Further wars among the successors brought mixed fortunes, but Ptolemy was never seriously threatened with losing his core Egyptian territories. By presenting himself as an Egyptian ruler in appearance 372 Ptolemies and style of rule, Ptolemy gained support from the Egyptian people that lasted, by and large, throughout the length of the dynasty. Even so, Ptolemaic Egypt retained a distinctive Macedonian Greek nature. A total of 15 Ptolemies were named, although only 14 reigned since Ptolemy VII was not able to take the throne. Seven of these Ptolemies were in fact named Cleopatra, and these 11 women reigned as regents while their sons or brothers were too young to rule. The prominence of female rulers was unprecedented in Western antiquity and would be surprising even in the 21st century. The second Ptolemy, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 285–246 b.c.e.) introduced the practice of sibling marriage when he took his sister as his wife; she became Arsinoe II. This shocked the Greeks but was considered appropriate for an Egyptian monarch. She was widely regarded as the power behind the throne, and while her infl uence was almost certainly less than that, her example does show the importance of women in the administration of the Ptolemaic state. Her likeness appeared on offi cial coinage, and she benefi ted from monarch worship cults. The Ptolemies improved administration by the introduction of advanced taxation regimes, together with measures to prevent extortion by corrupt tax collectors. A great deal of industry came under state control, and the fertile Nile delta lands and overseas possessions were used to provide security and a measure of shared prosperity for the Egyptian people. A census was conducted under Ptolemy II Philadelphus that itemized all sources of water and other resources and was used to plan for agricultural innovations and improvements. Irrigation was greatly increased and the newly fertile lands were used for the settlement of migrant Greeks. They in turn contributed to the growth of Alexandria, which grew into a formidable example of Greco-Egyptian intellectual endeavor. It held a monopoly on papyrus throughout much of the Mediterranean and controlled trade in goods from the east. Throughout the third century b.c.e., external dangers to the Ptolemiac empire came from successor states to the east, together with occasional resurgent Greek citystates. These wars were generally fought outside Egypt on overseas possessions; however, internal revolts developed following the Battle of Raphia (217 b.c.e.), fought in Palestine and resulting in a victory for the Ptolemaic side against the Seleucids. Ptolemy’s army contained large contingents of native Egyptians, and it appears that their success emboldened them into believing that a native could once again lead Egypt. Uprisings in the upper Nile region continued for years but did not seriously threaten the Ptolemaic state. A greater threat was arising in the western Mediterranean as the Roman Republic became increasingly infl uential. Romans had long coveted the riches of Egypt, particularly the wheat that would eventually feed Roman citizens and sustain the empire. The Ptolemaic empire gradually declined to Egypt and Cyprus. It was not until Julius Caesar pursued Pompey to Egypt after the latter’s defeat in the civil war that a concerted effort was made to bring Egypt under Roman military control. Ptolemy Cleopatra VII became the lover of Julius Caesar in an attempt to retain Egyptian independence. After Caesar’s assassination Cleopatra contracted a relationship with Mark Antony, chief loyalist of Caesar, and when Octavian and his allies at the Battle of Actium in 31 b.c.e. defeated him, she committed suicide, and Rome took control. Although both the preceding pharaohs and the succeeding Romans are better known in popular culture, the Ptolemies were no less infl uential in shaping the ancient world. See also Middle Kingdom, Egypt; New Kingdom, Egypt; Old Kingdom, Egypt. Further reading: Bagnall, Roger S. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1976; Bowman, Alan K. Egypt after the Pharaohs: 332 BC–AD 642 from Alexander to the Arab Conquest. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996; Chauveau, Michel. Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra: History and Society under the Ptolemies. Trans. by David Lorton. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000; Stanwick, Paul Edmund. Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharoahs. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. John Walsh Punic Wars See Hannibal; Roman Empire. pyramids of Giza The pyramids on the Giza Plateau of Egypt were erected as royal tombs in the 26th century b.c.e. The Great Pyramid, largest of three major structures, housed the remains of the pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), while the other two were built for Khufu’s son Khafra and grandson Menkaure. One of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World—and the only one still standing—the Great Pyramid was the tallest human-made building on earth until 1885, when the Washington Monument was completed. The pyramid stands 481 feet high. Experts estimate that its original 2.3 million blocks of limestone and granite, quarried from pyramids of Giza 373 a site southeast of the pyramid, weighed an average of 2.5 tons each. These blocks were moved over a series of ramps up to 164 feet wide to the construction site. All of the pyramids at Giza were built during the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom. Several factors combined to make the switch of labor from agriculture to building feasible. Egypt faced no strong foreign threats; its only military efforts were raids on weaker states. Better administration and collection of taxes and a favorable trading position allowed Khufu to trade royal land for labor from the nobility. The fi rst king of that dynasty, Sneferu, built the Bent Pyramid and Red Pyramid, south of Seqqara at Dahshur. Khufu, his son, reigned from 2589 to 2566 b.c.e. Khufu’s vizier (and cousin), Hemiunu, who was also the son of Sneferu’s vizier, oversaw the building of the pyramid complex and was buried in the western cemetery of the complex. Archaeologists are certain now that neither the Great Pyramid nor other edifi ces in Giza were built by slave labor. Up to 40,000 workers toiled for 10 to 15 years during Khufu’s reign to erect the pyramid as well as the temples, causeways, and other tombs that lined the Giza Plateau. Three smaller pyramids for wives of Khufu were constructed on the east, exactly one-fi fth the scale of Khufu’s. Khufu was buried in his pyramid in the King’s Chamber, which was reached through ascending corridors and the Grand Gallery. Only his red granite sarcophagus remains; grave robbers took his body and personal effects centuries ago. Khufu was followed by two sons: Djedefe, who was buried in his unfi nished pyramid at Abu Rawash, and Khafra, who ruled Egypt from 2558 to 2532 b.c.e. Khafra’s son Menkaure ruled from 2532 to 2503 b.c.e. Both Khafra and Menkaure built pyramids at Giza, and those, along with the Great Pyramid, dominate the site. Khafra’s pyramid looks almost as large as his father’s because it was built on higher ground; it reaches 471 feet high. Khafra’s complex includes the Great Sphinx, a unique statue close to the causeway, with an early sun temple in front of it. The pyramids at Giza are surrounded by smaller, stone mastabas of family members, offi cials, and priests. Often, these were gifts of the pharaoh and built by the same artisans that erected the pyramids. Giza is unique in that these mastabas are arranged in grids, like city blocks with streets running by them. See also Egypt, culture and religion; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. The pyramids of Giza served as royal tombs, with the Great Pyramid, the largest, housing the remains of the pharaoh Khufu. One of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World—and the only one still standing—the Great Pyramid was the tallest human-made building on Earth. 374 pyramids of Giza Further reading: Isler, Martin. Sticks, Stones, and Shadows; Building the Egyptian Pyramids. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001; Smith, Craig B. How the Great Pyramid Was Built. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 2004; Verner, Miroslav. The Pyramids. New York: Grove Press, 1997. Vickey Kalambakal Pyrrhus (318–272 b.c.e.) king of Epirus Pyrrhus (the Greek word for “fi ery red”) was the pugilistic king of the Hellenistic kingdom of Epirus from 306 to 301 b.c.e. and again from 297 to 272 b.c.e. His costly but successful military tactics against Macedonia and Rome gave rise to the phrase Pyrrhic victory. Primary sources for his life include The Life of Pyrrhus by the Greek historian Plutarch, the Periochae by the Roman historian Livy, and the History of the Samnite War by Appian of Alexandria. Born the son of Epirot king Aeacides and a Greek named Phthia, the daughter of a hero in the Greek war of liberation against the Macedonians, Pyrrhus spent his fi rst two years in the royal court of Epirus. When Aeacides was deposed by his subjects and his adherents executed, Pyrrhus was smuggled out of the country and taken to safety to the court of King Glaucias of Illyria, who reluctantly agreed to raise Pyrrhus with his own children. When Pyrrhus was 12 (306 b.c.e.), Glaucias invaded Epirus and restored Pyrrhus to its throne. Hated by his Molossian subjects, Pyrrhus’s fi rst reign came to an end as a result of a coup that occurred while he was attending the wedding of a son of Glaucias. The revolutionaries, led by Cassander, plundered Pyrrhus’s property and invited Neoptolemus II to be king in 302 b.c.e. Pyrrhus took refuge with his sister’s husband, Demetrius—son of Antigonus, the king of Asia. After Antigonus and Demetrius lost the Battle of Ipsus (301 b.c.e.), Ptolemy I of Egypt took Pyrrhus hostage. This seemingly inhospitable situation proved fruitful for Pyrrhus, who impressed Ptolemy with his strength and courage at hunting parties and worked his charm on Berenice, Ptolemy’s wife, leading her to permit Pyrrhus to marry Antigone, her daughter from a previous marriage. In 297 b.c.e. Ptolemy fi nanced a new coup in Epirus and sent Pyrrhus back to his homeland with an army of mercenaries, where he reclaimed the throne through a series of shrewd political dealings. Announcing that he would share power with Neoptolemus, Pyrrhus fi rst became leader of the Epirote confederacy and then duped his people into believing that his colleague had committed treason, fi nally killing Neoptolemus at a banquet to assume the kingship. Pyrrhus now acted as Ptolemy’s watchdog in Europe, guarding Egyptian interests against archrival Cassander of Macedonia. When Cassander died, he left his throne to his son Philip IV, who died within two months. Consequently, Cassander’s other two sons, the elder Antipater and the younger Alexander, unsuccessfully attempted to divide the kingdom. When hostility between the brothers erupted, Antipater sent Alexander into exile, with Alexander fl eeing to Pyrrhus. In exchange for invading Macedonia in 294 b.c.e. and securing a balance of power between the two brothers, Pyrrhus received more territory in the northwestern parts of Greece. When Demetrius, Pyrrhus’s erstwhile friend and ally, killed Alexander and took over Macedonia, the relationship between the two rulers grew bitter and soon broke out into war in 291 b.c.e. Pyrrhus defeated Pantauchus, one of Demetrius’s generals, and then invaded Macedonia in search of plunder. For a brief period Demetrius became dangerously ill, and Pyrrhus came close to capturing the whole of Macedonia. Once Demetrius had recovered enough to take the fi eld, Pyrrhus made a hasty retreat back to Epirus. This retreat was short lived, as Pyrrhus, with the help of King Lysimachus of Thrace, invaded Macedonia in 288 b.c.e. when the Macedonians revolted against Demetrius. In 287 b.c.e. Pyrrhus and Lysimachus were recognized as co-regents of Macedonia, with the river Axios as border between the former’s western and the latter’s eastern regions. Two years later Pyrrhus was forced to resign his Macedonian lands to Lysimachus. Temporarily resigned to Epirus, the warrior king next turned his attention to conquering Roman territories. In 281 b.c.e. the citizens of Tarentum came under attack from Rome and turned to Pyrrhus for help. Pyrrhus sent more than 3,000 soldiers and his adviser Cineas, followed by a fl eet and 20 elephants, 3,000 cavalry, 20,000 infantry, 2,000 archers, and 500 slingers. Upon arriving at Tarentum, Pyrrhus assembled his forces and imposed a more disciplined way of life upon the inhabitants. Setting out from there, Pyrrhus defeated the Roman army in a battle on the banks of the river Siris. He proceeded to march toward Rome, but when he learned that the Romans had raised more troops, he sent Cineas to make peace with the Romans. Although initially inclined to accept Cineas’s proposals, an impassioned speech by Appius Claudius convinced the Senate to reply that Pyrrhus leave Italy without a treaty or alliance. Unwilling to accede to the Senate’s wishes, Pyrrhus embarked on the infamous Battle of Pyrrhus 375 Asculum (279 b.c.e.), where he won at the devastating price of 4,000 casualties. It was on this occasion that Pyrrhus remarked, “Another such victory and I shall be ruined,” resulting in the term Pyrrhic victory for a victory obtained at too great a cost. At this juncture the Sicilians sought Pyrrhus’s aid against the Carthaginians, thus giving him an excuse to leave Italy. Pyrrhus campaigned in Sicily for two years, but the Sicilians came to hate him because of his execution of Thoenon, one of their leading citizens, on suspicion of treason. Pyrrhus then returned to Italy, where he was defeated at Beneventum in 275 b.c.e. Three years later the Peloponnesian ruler Cleonymus invited Pyrrhus to intervene in his struggle with the Spartan king Areus. Notwithstanding his army of 25,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry, and 24 elephants, Pyrrhus was unable to capture Sparta. Attacked en route by the Spartans at Argos, Pyrrhus and his forces took to street fi ghting, in which a tile hurled from a roof by an Argive woman stunned Pyrrhus. While he was partly unconscious, one of Areus’s men recognized him and killed him. See also Greek city-states; Ptolemies; Roman historians. Further reading: Garoufalias, Petros E. Pyrrhus: King of Epirus. New York: Robert Beard, 1999; Lévêque, Pierre. Pyrrhos. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1957; Plutarch. Pyrrhus: The Fool of Hope. In Plutarch’s Lives. Trans. by Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Kirk R. MacGregor Pythagoras (fl . 530 b.c.e.) Greek philosopher Pythagoras was a Greek thinker and contributor to pre- Socratic philosophy who was born on the isle of Samos. He fl ed tyranny to establish a school in southern Italy at Croton, which contained both scientifi c and mystical streams of thought. Pythagoras achieved infl uence at Croton for a period, but this eventually waned, and he retired, perhaps fl eeing elsewhere. It appears that Pythagoras wrote nothing himself—or at least nothing that has survived—and his disciples and subsequent followers, the Pythagoreans, ascribed their own ideas to their master out of respect. Assessing his contribution accurately is subject to speculation; however, the enormous and unusual levels of respect shown to him by his followers suggest that his personal contribution was signifi cant. Re-creation of his life and times is assisted by fragmentary mentions in the works of Plato and Aristotle and hints that he may have visited or studied with Anaximander and Thales. The contribution of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans is divided between the religious and the scientifi c, the latter is better known today, especially the theorem and its impact on musical theory. Pythagorean geometry featured the specifi cation of the hypotenuse to identify the lengths of the sides of right-angled triangles, although this was probably not the fi rst statement of the proposition. The use of ratios to explain the mathematical relationships underlying the structure of music have also been very infl uential. The underlying concept was that it was relationships between the ratios of the fi rst four integers (known as the Decad), which gave rise to the melodic intervals. A series of 10 opposite pairs, or dualities, was established, both of which were necessary for existence. One half of these pairs were “limited” and the other half “unlimited,” and together they connected all the many points that constituted the universe. Eventually, this gave rise to the concept of the music of the spheres, in which complex numerical relationships existed, which regulated the movements and natures of all physical phenomena according to moral principles. In religious or spiritual terms, Pythagoreans led a rather ascetic life that stressed moral principles underlying the nature of the universe and the transmigration of the soul—that is, reincarnation—that all people would undergo on numerous occasions, not always taking human form. His disciples followed strict dietary guidelines and may have avoided making animal sacrifi ces, an important feature of Greek religious practices at the time, as part of their commitment to a vegetarian way of life. In any case the Pythagoreans excited compassion and sympathy rather than dislike or contempt. Further reading: El-Koussa, Karim. Pythagoras the Mathemagician. Lebanon: Cloonfad Press, 2005; Kahn, Charles H. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2001. John Walsh 376 Pythagoras 377 Qin (Ch’in) dynasty The Qin state was founded in 897 b.c.e. during the Zhou (Chou) dynasty; it became an important state in contention for leadership in unifying China the in mid-fourth century b.c.e. The Qin lasted only 15 years as a national dynasty between 221 and 206 b.c.e. but left a lasting impact for inaugurating the imperial era in Chinese history. The rise of Qin paralleled that of Zhou almost 1,000 years earlier. Both were frontier states toughened by wars against barbarian tribes, and both were far from the refi ned court. It was located in the northwest frontier in modern Gansu (Kansu) Province west of the Wei River, protected from enemies in the east by mountains and gorges. It fi rst gained national attention in 770 b.c.e. when Duke Xiang (Hsiang) of Qin provided protection for the Zhou court against the Rong (Jung) barbarians as it moved from Hao to the eastern capital at Luoyang (Loyang). After the 600s b.c.e. Qin moved its capital several times, fi nally to Xianyang (Hsienyang) close to Hao and the modern city Xi’an (Sian) in 350 b.c.e. Qin led China in developing an extensive irrigation system that made its rich soil productive. When Qin conquered Sichuan (Szechuan) in the upper Yangtze Valley its engineers built an intricate water control and irrigation system in the rich Chendu (Chengtu) Plain, which is still operating now. A surplus of food allowed it to divert manpower to the army when Qin embarked on campaigns to conquer its rivals. Qin was also open to employing talented people, regardless of their origin. In 356 b.c.e. it appointed a man from the state of Wei, named Shang Yang (better known as Lord Shang), chief minister. He served until 338 b.c.e. and developed a political philosophy called Legalism that his successors Han Fei and Li Si (Li Ssu) continued. Their reforms included the abolition of feudalism, bringing land under central government control, administered by bureaucrats appointed and promoted on merit. Serfdom ended, making tillers tax-paying owners of their land on the assumption that free people worked and fought harder. Therefore, hard-working farmers and disciplined soldiers were esteemed, and merchants and scholars were suspected as unproductive and perhaps subversive. Legalists emphasized law to uphold the state’s power and promulgated severe laws, uniformly applied, to encourage good conduct and deter wrongdoing. These measures made Qin the strongest among the states during the late Warring States era. In 256 b.c.e. Qin destroyed the Zhou ruling house. Its fi nal drive for unifi cation began in 246 b.c.e. when a young man born in 259 b.c.e. mounted the throne as King Zheng (Cheng). At fi rst his mother and a former merchant, chief minister Lu Buwei (Lu Pu-wei) acted as regents. He ruled alone after 238 b.c.e., with Li Si as chief minister; together they completed the defeat of all rival states and established a unifi ed empire called the Qin dynasty in 221 b.c.e. King Zheng became Qin Shihuangdi (Ch’in Shih Huang-ti), which translates as “fi rst emperor of the Qin.” He was so confi dent that China (our name for the country derives from Ch’in) would be governed by his family for all time that he ruled that his Q descendants would only need a numeral to distinguish them, for example, as the second emperor. The fi rst emperor and Li Si were responsible for changing the course of China. They extended many of Qin state’s reforms to the whole country, abolishing feudalism and organizing the empire into a number of commanderies (provinces) and subdividing them into counties. This system persists to the present. No offi ce except that of the ruling house would be hereditary, and all offi cials would be appointed by the central government and promoted or demoted on merit. All serfs were freed. Standardization was their watchword and was applied to the width of roads, weights and measures, laws, coinage, and even the written script. Thought was also controlled. Only Legalism could be taught, all other philosophies were banned, and all books except technical ones and the history of the house of Qin were to be burned (only one copy of all banned books were to be kept in the imperial library, accessible to offi cials alone). The emperor had 460 scholars buried alive for opposing him and had his eldest son, the crown prince, banished to duty along the Great Wall of China for having defended them. The fi rst emperor also embarked on massive construction projects. He ordered General Meng Tian (Meng T’ien) to connect existing walls into one Great Wall to guard against the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) nomads. A network of roads were built to facilitate troop movements, likewise a system of canals to connect the lower Yangtze Valley with Guangzhou (Canton) in the south to transport troops and supplies for their conquest of southern China and present-day northern Vietnam. Xianyang became a grand capital with sumptuous palaces and residences, and outside the city a massive mausoleum was built as his resting place. The fi rst emperor died suddenly in 210 b.c.e., and his will designated the exiled crown prince as successor. However, Li Si and chief eunuch Zhao Gao (Chao Kao) changed the will, ordered the crown prince and Meng Tian to commit suicide (which they did) and installed a weakling younger prince as second emperor. Zhao Gao then had both Li Si and the second emperor killed 378 Qin (Ch’in) dynasty Thousands of terra-cotta soldiers were buried with Emperer Qin, who died in 210 b.c.e. Life-sized terra-cotta fi gures of warriors and horses were arranged in battle formations and are said to have distinct facial features, as if each one were modeled on a real fi gure. and installed another prince on the throne. Soon spontaneous rebellions were everywhere, and by 206 b.c.e. the Qin dynasty was gone. The Qin state unifi ed China and briefl y ruled as a national dynasty. Its rise was due largely to Legalism; its fall discredited Legalism forever. Although the dynasty was short lived, it inaugurated the imperial era in Chinese history, and many of its reforms would remain. 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.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1967; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe. 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 Qumran The Dead Sea Scrolls have rightly been called the most important manuscript discovery of the 20th century. In 1946 Bedouin shepherds were grazing their fl ocks near a place called Wadi Qumran. (Wadi is the Arabic word for “dry river bed.”) One of these shepherds, named Jum‘a Muhammad Khalil, threw a stone into a cave that was later named Cave 1. Having heard the sound of shattering pottery, he fl ed in fear. Another shepherd returned to the cave at a later time and discovered that the cave contained several jars, one of which was fi lled with ancient scrolls. It was not clear to the Bedouin shepherds at that time that these scrolls were ancient Jewish scrolls, written in Hebrew, dating at least one millennium earlier than the oldest copy of the jewish bible. One of these scrolls was a copy of the biblical book of Isaiah. The other two scrolls were not previously known texts: a copy of the Rule of the Community of the Scrolls (the Community Rule, also known as the Manual of Discipline) and a commentary on the biblical prophetic book of Habakkuk. Once it became clear to scholars what the scrolls were, a team of archaeologists set out to explore other caves in the area to see if they could locate more hidden scrolls. A total of 11 caves near Wadi Qumran were identifi ed, yielding more than 900 manuscripts of varying condition, many extremely fragmentary. Scholars have dated these texts to approximately 250 b.c.e. to 100 c.e. by comparing the handwriting in these scrolls with other known styles of ancient handwriting. The study of handwriting styles and their relative dating is called paleography. These dates have been consistent with dates achieved by other means such as carbon-14 dating. The largest quantity of scrolls (and the most fragmentary ones of all) comes from Cave 4. This cave is clearly visible from the ancient ruins of a settlement that had been known to archaeologists as early as 1850. It is referred to today by its modern Arabic name, Khirbet Qumran. Scholars believe that it was destroyed during the Roman occupation of Israel sometime during the fi rst century c.e. Various scholarly theories were proposed concerning the original purpose of the site: a Roman villa (a type of summer home), a military fortress, or a sectarian settlement. Many fi nd the sectarian settlement theory to be the most compelling identifi cation for the ruins. Adjacent to the ruins are the remains of a cemetery. A major question for scholars is the relationship between the caves and the Qumran ruins. In the beginning the nearby caves could not be identifi ed with certainty with the settlement because very little material evidence existed to link the two together. While both the scrolls and the settlement are dated to approximately the same time period, no scrolls were found in the settlement. The strongest material evidence linking the scrolls to the settlement is the pottery. The pottery that contained these manuscripts in the caves matches the pottery that was found in the settlement. Another link between the scrolls and the settlement is their strong interest in purity concerns. References to purity and the ritual use of water in the Dead Sea Scrolls correspond with the large number of plastered reservoirs found throughout the settlement. Some scholars, however, would like to keep open the possibility that the close proximity between the caves and the settlement ruins was entirely accidental. Such scholars hold the view that the library found in the caves at Qumran was brought by people fl eeing Jerusalem and concealed there for safekeeping. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained a great variety of writings and provide a rare glimpse of the Jewish scriptures before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 c.e. A signifi cant number of the texts were identifi ed as biblical books from the Jewish Hebrew scriptures. The most popular book is Psalms, with 36 copies, Deuteronomy is second with 29 copies, and Isaiah is third with 21 copies. Almost every book of the Bible has been identifi ed among the scrolls and fragments at least once with the exception of the book of Esther. It is possible that the Community of the Scrolls would not have preserved the book of Esther. Another category of writings that is well represented among the Qumran 379 scrolls is the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha. While these writings would not have been considered scriptural texts, they would have been known and read by many different Jewish groups during that time. The scrolls also yielded various sectarian writings (manuscripts of texts that seemed to be unique to the sect of Judaism responsible for the Qumran library). These texts include legal texts, such as the Temple Scroll (11QT) and Some Works of the Law (4QMMT); specialized texts such as the previously mentioned Community Rule (1QS), the War Scroll (1QM), and the Pesharim (commentaries on various biblical prophetic texts); and the Thanksgiving Hymns Scroll (1QH). Scholars knew one text from this group of sectarian writings previously as the Damascus Document. This interesting text was fi rst discovered in 1896 by Solomon Schechter of Cambridge University who came across copies of this text from a repository for old nonusable sacred texts in Cairo, Egypt. With the help of ultraviolet and infrared photography, scholars are able to read scroll fragments that are extremely damaged and inscrutable to the naked eye. Although there are other theories, many scholars are convinced that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the community at Qumran should be identifi ed with a Jewish sect that has long since died out known as the Essenes. The Dead Sea Scrolls have opened a window into a time and place that would later see the rise of two great world religions, rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. While the Community of the Scrolls is probably not the precursor to either of these groups, the scrolls themselves make an important contribution to our overall understanding of the context from which these other religious movements emerged. See also apocalypticism, Jewish and Christian; Christianity, early; John the Baptist; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); messianism; prophets. Further reading: Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002; Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity. New York: Doubleday, 1994; Shanks, Hershel, ed. Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review. New York: Random House, 1992; VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994; ———, and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Signifi cance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 2002. Angela Kim Harkins

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Pallava kingdom Pallava was a state based in Southeast India that fl ourished between approximately the fourth and the ninth centuries c.e. The Pallava dynasty was Hindu but also supported Buddhism and Brahmanism and was known as a patron of the arts. Under its rule, trade grew with Sri Lanka and with Southeast Asia and the state appears, so far as can be determined, to have been quite prosperous. It established its capital at Kanchi, close to modern Chennai (previously known as Madras). Tamil infl uences and cultural institutions grew in importance throughout the course of the Pallava dynasty and continued with its Chola successors. Various theories have been put forward for both the origin and the demise of the Pallava state. The Pallava people may have been a part of the Parthians, the Dravidians, the Cholas, or several other distinct ethnic groups. It is most likely that the majority of the people were a mixture of different ethnic groups interacting together within a common territory. Migration was a notable feature of the ancient world and even if social mobility was rendered very diffi cult by the caste system, geographical mobility was often possible on either an individual or a group basis. The fi rst named Pallava ruler was King Visnugopa, who appears in local records in the common Prakrit version of Sanskrit. Other kings and rulers appear in subsequent records but few meaningful details are available beyond their names. The lives of ordinary people can only be reconstructed from archaeological excavation. Pallava rulers appear to have expanded their territories in the early centuries of their existence, but it is possible that this expansion was the discovery of other peoples involved in similar cultural practices and not the result of conquest at all. However, territorial expansion ended and subsequent Pallava rulers were persistently harried by the Chola feudatory allies of the Calukya dynasty to the west. Chola rulers gradually supplanted Pallava infl uence throughout its territory and gradually brought its rule to an end. It is diffi cult to determine whether this change of rulership made any real difference to the lives of the mass of the common people. The sculptures and inscriptions of the Pallava state are notable in the development of the Indian artistic tradition. One of the centerpieces of this architecture may be found at the Shore Temple located at Mahabalipuram. This combines Dravidian styles with other infl uences and was formerly a port. Ports are notable for the ways in which cultural institutions of various ethnicities interact and interrelate, sometimes creating entirely new combinations. See also Chola kingdom. Further reading: Govindasamy, M. S. The Role of Feudatories in Pallava History. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University, 1965; Schalk, Peter A. Veluppillai and Ira Nakacami, eds., Buddhism among Tamils in Pre-Colonial Tamilakam and Ilam: Prologue: The Pre-Pallava and the Pallava Period. Uppsala Universitet, 2002. John Walsh P Papal States The Papal States were originally private property, owned and controlled by the popes in Rome. After the eighth century the term was applied to the duchy of Rome and surrounding feudal estates. Constantine the Great, the fi rst Holy Roman Emperor, declared that the Christian Church was a legal entity in the empire. Included in this declaration were the rights of the church to own and administer landed possessions. Constantine set the example for this civil doctrine by gifting the Lateran Palace to the church. Many noble Roman families, some with a millennium of pedigree, followed suit and donated land to the church. Some of these properties still bear the name of the family who donated them. Donation of large estates ended in the early seventh century. During the early centuries of the papal estates, lands in the provinces of Gaul and Africa were included, but this practice stopped as non-Christian Germanic tribes conquered these areas. Most of these properties were lost in the early eighth century and by the end of that century the German invaders also confi scated the properties in Italian sectors outside Rome. All that remained were the lands in and around Rome, which were then owned not by the church, but by the pope. The pope thus became the largest landowner in Italy. The revenues of the papal estates supported the church in Rome and the many monasteries, convents, hospitals, orphanages, and poorhouses in the area. In times of famine it was the pope, not the emperor, who had the responsibility of providing Roman citizens with food and water. Thus the emperor could fend off political scrutiny in regard to agriculture disasters or epidemics by saying the pope was responsible for the evils visited upon the capital city. As the number of lands under control of the papacy increased after the ninth century, the temporal power of the popes increased in proportion. In time all other rulers on the Italian peninsula had to contend with and gain the support of the popes for their social, economic, political, and military campaigns. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the pope became the most powerful leader in Italy and in all of western Europe. Even during the Ostrogothic occupation, the pope was given control over temporal affairs in the region. In 554 Emperor Justinian I issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which entrusted the pope and the Roman senate with control of weights and measures in the area, granting them indispensable powers in the region and ensuring loyal support from the region’s rulers for the government in Byzantium. This loyalty was felt most bitterly among the Roman populace, whose only recourse to excess taxation and conscription by the Byzantine authorities was the Roman court system, which most often sided with the emperor. Election of the pope by the people of Rome, the practice of the time, did not deter the popes from choosing the emperor over the Roman citizenry. As the Lombards began sacking Italian cities in the north, the papacy was in danger and an appeal was made to the emperor at Byzantium. But the Lombards conquered Italy, including the papal estates, in the eighth century. In 754 Pepin, king of the Franks, agreed to fi ght the Lombards and return the papal estates to the church, the fi rst valid documents to give credence to the papal estates. Charlemagne and his armies would later protect these lands from Lombard domination. But Charlemagne exerted so much control over these lands that tensions rose between the church and the Frankish court. The Frankish kings also maintained control over papal elections, only rarely actually dictating the outcome, but more commonly guaranteeing the elections’ taking place through the Constitution of Lothair, a legal document that kept the protection of the pope by the emperor. In the ninth and 10th centuries the control of the papal estates came under great infl uence by various Italian kings and their families, including the many counts of Tusculum. The area controlled by the popes of this time had dwindled to that of the areas around the duchy of Rome. Under the Holy Roman Emperors Otto I and Otto II, the pope was often in exile, having his allegiance to the emperors as the primary reason. Only conquest by Otto III helped return the popes to Rome. In the 11th century the naming of popes and antipopes confused the relations of the church with the people in the papal estates. In 1059 Pope Nicholas II sought to free the papacy from the control of the Holy Roman Empire. New regulations for electing the pope were enacted, removing the choice from the hands of the emperor. Various Norman and Italian nobles added more land to the papal estates in the 12th and 13th centuries. When Emperor Frederick II and the Roman curia quarreled in the early 13th century, the lands were again placed in jeopardy. Many confl icts and wars in northern Italy led to French control over the papal estates. During the Avignon exile of the popes in the 14th century, France controlled not only the election of the pope, but also the papal estates. This period saw the decline in the infl uence of the pope in the papal estates and the rise of the control of the region in the hands of the Colonna and Orsini families. Certain regions of the estates revolted and a near anarchy resulted in some regions. In 320 Papal States 1353 Cardinal Albornoz brought the area again under subjection to the pope, a state that would remain in force until 1816. See also Avignonese papacy; Frankish tribe; Pepin, Donation of; Rome, Medieval. Further reading: Bonney, Richard. The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe, c. 1200–1815. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999; Krautheimer, Richard. Rome: Profi le of a City, 312–1308. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000; Whaley, Daniel P. The Papal State in the Thirteenth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1961. Russell James Peasants’ Revolt In the early summer of 1381 a series of protests and revolts erupted across England. Peasants and townspeople rose against royal agents in opposition to a poll tax the royal government had levied upon them. While the poll tax was the immediate cause of the rebellion, it was the focal point for a litany of complaints about the economic oppression the landholders and government had forced upon working people since the Black Death. In the three decades following the Black Death landlords and peasants struggled over customary obligations and duties. The plague created a labor shortage and an increased availability of land, and many peasants saw an opportunity for economic gain, but the landholders saw the potential for their own economic ruin. The lords attempted to solve the problem using legal means, establishing laws such as the Statute of Laborers (1351), which fi xed all wages at the levels of 1346, before the plague. Peasants who profi ted from higher wages received fi nes. Enforcement proved diffi - cult since manorial lords, lesser gentry, wealthy peasants, and towns all competed for the smaller labor supply, but attempts to enforce the law nevertheless occurred, making lawyers and government offi cials the objects of resentment while driving rural village leaders and urban labor leaders into alliance. A collapse in grain prices in the mid-1370s intensifi ed the economic tension. To compound the commoners’ tax burden, the Crown’s extended military campaigns had proved extremely costly. To pay off debt from previous adventures, as well as to fund new military activity in France, in 1371 the Crown undertook a program of increasingly intense taxation. Labor laws and landlords attempting to revive their manorial rights never provoked anything beyond local protest and passive resistance, but new taxes introduced in 1371 differed remarkably from traditional forms of taxation. The taxes on parishes of 1371 and the poll taxes of 1377, 1379, and 1381 taxed people rather than possessions or land, and they hit hardest in the populous areas of East Anglia. With taxation at an all-time high in 1381, the Crown levied a poll tax to raise £66,666 for the duke of Buckingham’s campaign in Brittany. The tax was three times what it had been in 1377. However the collectors’s preliminary returns indicated a nationwide shortfall in revenue. One-third of the people who paid the tax in 1377 were missing—nearly half a million taxpayers. Faced with a potential shortfall of one-third of its poll tax revenue, the government ordered the tax assessors back into the fi eld and appointed commissions composed of local landholders and lawyers to investigate instances of evasion and collect delinquent taxes. On May 30 an angry group of men, insisting that they had already paid their taxes, attacked two tax commissioners at Brentwood. The commissioners fl ed, and villagers, fearing government retribution, banded together with men from nearby villages. On June 2 they gathered at Bocking, swearing to destroy the king’s agents, his laws, all forms of lordship, and to live only by their own laws. The protestors sent word to Kent, where another rising had occurred, appealing for support. The rising spread to central Essex, where rebels murdered the escheator and destroyed the houses of Sir Robert Hales, the king’s treasurer, and Sir John Sewale, the sheriff. Rebels burned the sheriff’s fi nancial records in Chelmsford on June 11, and throughout the county peasants burned manorial records, destroying proof of their landlords’ claims over them. The peasants directed most of their violence against records rather than landholders, but some died, mostly sheriffs, justices, and tax collectors who represented the Crown and the magistracy. The rebels vowed to destroy the institution of lordship yet fully supported their 14-year-old king, Richard II (1377–99), who nevertheless was wary. On June 11 he rode to the Tower of London with his bodyguard and the earls of Salisbury, Warwick, and Oxford. His mother; his chancellor, Archbishop Sudbury; his treasurer, Hales; and William Walworth, mayor of London, also retreated to the Tower for protection. The next day the bands from Essex converged at Mile End and those from Kent met at Blackheath. Several leaders emerged, including Wat Tyler and Jack Straw. Richard sailed down the Thames to Greenwich to meet the rebels but with no way to ensure the king’s safety, Richard’s party concluded that landing would be too hazardous. Peasants’ Revolt 321 On Thursday morning, June 13, the mob arrived at the gates of London, and the city admitted them. The exact number of rebels that day is unknown. Once inside the gates, they released prisoners from the Fleet, Newgate, and the Marshalsea; burned the Savoy palace owned by the king’s uncle; and murdered foreigners, notably the Flemish and Italians. The royal party soon realized it was trapped. Though safe in the impregnable Tower, they were too few in number to break out. Their only hope was negotiation. The king agreed to meet the rebels on June 14 at Mile End. Friday morning Richard and his bodyguard of lords and knights rode out to talk with the mob. The king had to grant pardons and give charters of freedom to the rebels. Furthermore they demanded abolition of serfdom, rent of servile land of 4d. per acre, freedom to buy and sell in markets of their choice, and the right to enter service contracts of their own free will. Finally the rebels made Richard promise to punish traitors. He conceded and the mob dragged Hales and Sudbury from the Tower and executed them summarily. By this point most of the rebels had grown tired and hungry from their long adventure, and many had received what they had wanted. Charters in hand, they began to disperse homeward. However a large contingent of the most dedicated and radical remained, buoyed by the day’s successes. They wanted more from the young king, and Richard agreed to meet them again on Saturday. While the king prayed at Westminster, his nobles and the mayor mustered the London militia. The next day the rebels stood defi ant, bearing a royal standard and a banner of St. George. Richard and a small retinue rode out to meet Wat Tyler. Tyler built on the rebels’ previous demands, including abolition of serfdom and all of lordship but the king’s, and disendowment of the church and dismantling of its hierarchy. He also asked for the annulment of all law except the law of Winchester, which granted responsibility for peacekeeping to local authorities. As unrealistic as the demands were, Richard conceded everything except his regality and demanded that the rebels disperse. The peasants seemed satisfi ed, but then someone in the king’s retinue provoked Tyler, who then attacked the armored man with his knife, not harming him. Walworth ordered his arrest and when Tyler resisted the mayor struck him twice with his sword, and then a member of the king’s household ran him through two or three times. Tyler fell mortally wounded. The crowd became agitated and the young king rode toward the crowd to calm the rebels while his retinue sent for the militia. Sources suggest that the royal party had acted deliberately, but whatever the case the revolt collapsed and the rebels returned home under guard. Tyler’s vision of a self-governing countryside died with him, but the peasants carried home their charters of freedom, which they would use to challenge lordship for years to come. Widespread uprisings included attacks on abbeys and the magistracy, and the burning of manorial records after the rebellion in Essex during mid-June. The uprisings occurred in at least 240 places around England and participants included wealthier peasants, as well as laborers and craftsmen. Often townspeople and peasants coordinated their efforts, but in some areas, such as York, Beverley, and Scarborough in Yorkshire, the protests drew little or no rural support; nor did they necessarily call for a reordering of society. However all wished to reduce or remove the power that their lords held over their lands or property. The young king was not happy. Despite their ample willingness to recognize him as their only lord, Richard felt angry that his kingdom had come so close to destruction. He rode with a strong force into Essex, executing a “bloody assize,” and brutally suppressed the revolts. He revoked the charters on July 2, warning the peasants that they remained in bondage, and that things were going to get worse. The gentry and offi cials who ran the counties did not like these harsh tactics. In Kent and Hertfordshire, the gentry did not desire brutal punishment; nor did 322 Peasants’ Revolt King Richard II and his party retreated to the Tower of London, where they were safe from the mob of rebels but were trapped. they appreciate royal justices whose visitations overrode their own authority. While the local administrators did not understand the peasants’ hatred of servitude, they were more humane in their treatment of protestors than royal offi cials. In October the speaker from Essex told Parliament that the villains should be put in place, their charters revoked, and their leaders punished, but he said that followers should be handled leniently. Few could deny that the revolt showed a need for reform, and that justice and taxation had been handled unfairly. Some executions occurred, but most rebels received fi nes as punishment. It is easy to blame the Peasants’ Revolt on the poll tax of 1381, but in his work on the period, Gerald Harriss notes the complex picture leading up to the revolt. The village was the center of the peasants’ economic and political world. In the years following the Black Death, anger increased as peasants saw the institution of lordship blocking opportunity for economic gain and personal freedom. Commercial areas, such as East Anglia and Kent, felt anger toward the Statute of Laborers. Likewise the Black Death had changed the relationship between countryside and town and more interaction occurred than before 1348. In the wake of the plague peasants moved into towns, townspeople acquired land in the countryside, and the two economies, always interdependent, became permanently intertwined. Peasants and townspeople saw themselves as the true commons of the land, not the members of Parliament, and they saw no need for layers of lordship between themselves and the king. To villagers royal offi cials represented a false structure, imposed from the outside and unneeded. Tension caused by these factors had not gone unnoticed prior to the revolt. The House of Commons had expressed its concern about conspiracies in the years leading up to the revolt. The poll tax dumped the government and the nobility military failures onto the backs of the lowest order of society. The fact that the tax assessors were outsiders made matters worse, because it confi rmed the ill will the peasants already bore toward the nobility and prevented wealthier peasants from charitably paying a larger share to relieve the burden on their poorer neighbors, as had happened in the past. The poll tax served as a spark to set off the explosive Peasants’ Revolt. See also English common law; feudalism: Europe. Further reading: Dobson, R. B. The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1970; Harriss, Gerald. Shaping the Nation: England 1360–1461. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005; Hilton, R. H., and T. H. Ashton, eds. The English Rising of 1381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984; Hollister, C. Warren. The Making of England, 55 b.c. to 1399. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1983; Oman, Charles. The Great Revolt of 1381. London: Greenhill Books, Lionel Leventhal Ltd., 1989. Kevin D. Hill Pepin, Donation of The Donation of Pepin was one of the most important historical events of the early Middle Ages. The Byzantine Empire, the papacy, the Franks, and the Lombards were all involved in what became Pepin’s donation. It marked a change in the nature of political authority across the former Roman Empire, and what would become the medieval states in western Europe. Following the decline of Roman political authority in western Europe, a diffi cult situation emerged. While in 476 the western emperor Romulus Augustulus abdicated, the empire did not collapse. The symbols of western authority were returned to the East. From the eastern, or Byzantine, emperor’s perspective, the authority of Constantinople over Italy and other western provinces remained as legal as Constantine the Great’s authority 200 years earlier. What the Byzantine emperor of the eighth century lacked was military power, and the ability to project his authority over the western Roman provinces. This power fell to three newer groups in the area: the Lombards, the Franks, and the papacy. As the middle of the eighth century dawned, Constantinople’s position in Italy was weak. Real Byzantine authority was limited to particular cities and a narrow strip running from the former imperial capital of Ravenna to Rome. This created an opening for one of the newer groups in the area, the Lombards. In northern Italy, the Lombards were able to assert their dominance and independence from the Byzantine imperial authority. In doing this they created for themselves a powerful kingdom in northern Italy, and this threatened the papacy. The papacy in Rome had for some time been trying to assert its spiritual authority over the other bishops in Christendom. This put the popes at odds with the imperial authority in Constantinople, imperial authority that would be weakened if the patriarch of Constantinople lost equality with the pope. What put them into further confl ict was the lack of Byzantine civil authority on the ground in central Italy. The Byzantine government could neither protect the papacy from the Lombards nor Pepin, Donation of 323 perform even the most minor governmental functions. More and more, these functions fell to the pope as the largest landowner in the area. This left the pope as the de facto ruler of central Italy, while on parchment, the eastern emperor remained in control of the territory. The fi nal group in the area was the Franks, located in what today is France and western Germany. The Franks had moved into the area shortly after 476. From this time onward, the Franks had been growing in political and military might. Early in the eighth century Frankish lead armies had turned back a Muslim invasion of western Europe, an invasion that had captured most of Byzantine North Africa and Spain. By 751 the Lombards had defeated even the pretense of Byzantine authority in northern Italy, and Pope Stephen III sought alliance with the Frankish ruler Pepin the Short. Pepin wanted to be king of the Franks, while the church sought political and military protection from the Lombards, to say nothing of a possible political separation from the Eastern Church and Constantinople. Stephen granted religious sanction for Pepin to depose the Frankish king and to assume the throne. In return, Pepin marched an army to defeat the Lombards in northern and central Italy. Pepin then gave this land to the pope to administer as a prince. For the fi rst time the pope was more than a temporal ruler, and it is this action that is referred to as the Donation of Pepin. Fifty years later, Pope Leo III crowned the successor to Pepin Imperator Romanorum, emperor of the Romans. This man was Charlemange, the fi rst western Roman emperor since Romulus Augustulus. This marked the high point of Frankish-papal cooperation. Charlemagne codifi ed the actions of Pepin and confi rmed the independence of the Papal States and the Donation of Pepin. The donation led to the crowning of a western Roman emperor, the fi rst to claim political equality with the East since 476. This meant an end of Byzantine claims to the western territories of the Roman Empire. The eastern emperor would accept this, and the split also helped to cement the political separation of the eastern and western Christian churches. See also Frankish tribe. Further reading: Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984; Partner, Peter. The Lands of St. Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972; Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Knopf, 1997. Stephen Griffi n Petrarch (Francesco Petrarcha) (1304–1374) Renaissance humanist, historian, and poet Petrarch regarded his own era as an age of decadence and darkness. He yearned for a better future and turned to the study of classical antiquity for consolation and intellectual enlightenment. His enthusiasm for antiquity and his Latin writings made him the central fi gure in the classical revival that began in 14th-century Italy and laid the foundation for Renaissance humanism. Petrarch’s humanism was a blend of the ethical teachings of pagan writers and the moral and spiritual works of the church fathers. He was crowned poet laureate in Rome in 1341 for his achievements in Latin literature. His vernacular poems, often expressed in sonnets, also won him acclaim and were emulated by other poets. Petrarch was born in Arezzo, Italy, on July 20, 1304, to parents exiled from Florence for political reasons. The family moved to Carpentras near Avignon, the seat of the papacy, where his father was employed in the papal curia. In his early years, Petrarch was educated in Latin grammar and rhetoric and in touch with the cultural life of Avignon. He studied law at Montpellier and Bologna but rejected law after his father’s death. Petrarch turned to his true interests, the literature of classical antiquity and patristic Christianity. Peripatetic by nature, he traveled extensively in Europe but often returned to Avignon and nearby Vaucluse. While on these excursions, he recovered several of Cicero’s orations and a number of his letters. A visit to Rome and its ruins energized his interest in the revival of antiquity and he envisioned Rome as the cultural and spiritual center of a renewed Italy. He expressed these thoughts in his vernacular poem, Italia mia. As Petrarch gained in stature from his writings and his study of antiquity, he was welcomed by secular and religious leaders and was sustained by their patronage. He left Avignon and Vaucluse in 1353 and resided for several years at Milan before moving on to Venice and Padua. He died and was buried in 1374 in Arqua, a village south of Padua. Petrarch’s Latin works deal with a number of themes pertinent to an understanding of the nature of his humanism. His epic poem, Africa, narrates the victory of Scipio Africanus over Hannibal. De viris illustribus is a study of famous men. Secretum consists of three imaginary dialogues between Petrarch and Saint Augustine. They demonstrate Petrarch’s struggle to maintain a balance between his temporal and spiritual interests. De otio religioso justifi es monastic solitude and De vita solitaria defends a life of contemplation for the scholar. Many of his letters to contemporaries 324 Petrarch as well as those to Livy and his autobiographical Letter to Posterity express his discontent with his own age. Petrarch’s vernacular works have outlasted those in Latin. His Canzoniere, a collection of 366 poems, mainly sonnets, focus on his unrequited love for Laura, a woman he met in Avignon whose allure haunted him throughout his life. In Trionfi , fi gures from legend and history encounter the allegorical forms of Love, Chastity, Death, Fame, Time, and Eternity. See also Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Bergin, Thomas G. Petrarch. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1970; Bishop, Morris. Petrarch and his World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963; Wilkins, Ernest Hatch. Life of Petrarch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Louis B. Gimelli Philip II Augustus (Philip Augustus) (1165–1223) king of France Philip II Augustus, king of France (r. 1180–1223), was, born in 1165, to Louis VII (1137–80) and his third wife, Adèle of Champagne, near Paris. Following the custom of the Capetian dynasty, Louis had young Philip crowned at Reims cathedral as his successor while he was still alive on November 1, 1179. With the old king’s health quickly declining, the young crowned prince assumed much of the responsibility of running the royal government. In September of the following year when Louis died, Philip became king in his own right. Philip faced formidable obstacles to his authority in France. His father had been dominated at court by his wife, Adèle, and her three powerful brothers, the counts of Blois and Champagne, and the archbishop of Reims. Moreover the basis for power in 12th century feudal France was land, and the territory of the Capetian monarchy was limited to a number of modest holdings around the region of the Île-de-France, which centered on Paris. But those of Philip’s most powerful vassal, Henry Plantagenet, included the duchies of Normandy, Maine, Anjou, and Brittany. Through his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry also held the duchy of Aquitaine as well as Tourraine and Gascony. Together, they made up more than half of the territory of medieval France and far outstripped the holdings of the French king. The fact that Henry was also king of England (1154–89) further diminished the ability of either Louis or Philip to exercise meaningful control over Henry as lord of his French holdings. Philip began to lay the groundwork for the resurgence of royal power in France through his marriage to Isabelle d’Hainault in April 1180, through which he acquired the wealthy county of Artois, near Flanders. Through Isabelle he was able to lay further claims to lands and towns in northeastern France. By 1186 Philip had rid himself of his troublesome uncles and secured control over a widening area of royal lands. However his most obstreperous vassal remained Henry II of England with his vast territorial holdings in western France. From 1186 to 1188 Philip achieved little success on the battlefi eld against Henry but was more successful when allied with Henry’s two sons, Richard and John, in their revolt against the king in 1189. Defeated shortly before his death in July 1189, Henry made several minor territorial concessions to Philip. Inheriting his father’s lands in France upon becoming king of England Richard I (r. 1189–99) proved as intractable a foe as had Henry II. The lengths to which Philip would go to defeat his antagonist are revealed by his behavior during and after the Third Crusade, in which both he and Richard participated. Leaving France together in 1190, the two quarreled along the way and proved uneasy allies during the siege of Acre. After the city fell in July 1191, Philip quickly abandoned Richard and headed home. Returning to France, he intrigued against the English king and was instrumental in having Richard held captive by the German Emperor Henry IV when he fell into the emperor’s hands while returning from the crusade. Outright hostilities between the two recommenced upon Richard’s release in 1194. With the ascension of John I to the English throne (1189–1216) Philip’s fortune improved dramatically. By 1206 he had succeeded in wrestling control of Normandy, Maine, Tourraine, Anjou, Poitou, and Brittany from John, leaving him only in possession of Aquitaine. A major attempt by John to recapture his lost territories with the German Emperor Otto IV as ally was repulsed in 1214, ensuring Philip’s position as the dominant feudal lord and most powerful landholder in France. Philip showed a keen disposition for administrative affairs. He created a new class of royal offi cials, the baillis, who collected taxes and administered royal justice in his newly acquired lands. To ensure loyalty these offi cials were recruited from the townsmen and lower nobles of the realm and were paid a salary. In the south these offi - cials were called seneschals, and because they wielded military powers, they came from the nobility. Philip further developed the royal administration by giving it a permanent home in Paris and having his treasury perform an annual audit on the baillis. Crucial in Philip’s Philip II Augustus 325 ability to control his vassals was his growing alliance with the burghers, whose talent and taxes he exploited. The growth in royal revenues enabled the king to employ mercenaries in place of the feudal levy, further diminishing his reliance upon the nobles. Taken together Philip’s actions turned the Capetian ruler into the most powerful feudal monarch of his day and laid the framework for the future growth of royal power. See also Crusades. Further reading: Baldwin, John W. The Government of Philip Augustus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986; Bradbury, Jim. Philip Augustus, King of France. London: Longman, 1998. Ronald K. Delph Philip IV (1268–1314) king of France Philip IV, also known as “Philip the Fair,” was born in 1268 to Philip III and Isabel of Aragon and succeeded his father as king of France upon the latter’s death in October 1285. As earlier Capetian monarchs, Philip enhanced the size of royal territory, adding the lands of Champagne and Brie through his marriage to Jeanne of Navarre in 1284, and forcibly subjecting much of Flanders to French suzerainty in 1305. In his endeavor to wrestle control of the duchy of Gascony away from the English King Edward I (1272–1307), Philip clashed with the medieval papacy over the issue of royal authority in France. Philip provoked hostilities with Edward in 1296 when he seized much of Gascony. Preparing to repulse Edward’s invasion of France, Philip levied a tax on the French clergy in order to pay for the war. Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303) vehemently objected to Philip’s actions, holding that by canon law kings could only tax clergy in consultation with the pope. His bull Clericis laicos (1296) asserted this position and threatened excommunication to any ruler who attempted to tax the clergy of his land without papal approval. In retaliation Philip halted all revenues from France to Rome, forcing Boniface to relent and acknowledge that Philip had the right freely to tax the clergy of France for the defense of the realm. The two rulers clashed again over royal authority in 1301 when Philip’s offi cials, ignoring the practice of clerical immunity from secular courts, arrested the French bishop Bernard Saisset on charges of treason and prepared to try him in a royal court. Defying Boniface’s order to shift the trial to Rome and the pope’s subsequent threats, Philip convened the fi rst meeting of the Estates General in France (1302–03), to gain the backing of the nobles, clergy, and burghers in his quarrel with the pope. In 1302 Boniface issue the bull Unam sanctam, which asserted the most extensive claims of the papacy to intervene in secular affairs ever voiced in the Middle Ages. With Philip still in defi ance, in 1303 Boniface prepared to excommunicate the king, but Philip struck fi rst. His agents attempted to kidnap the pontiff from his summer palace in Anagni, south of Rome, and bring him back to France to stand trial as a heretic and schismatic. While the attempt failed, the aged pontiff was so unsettled that he died shortly thereafter. Following the brief pontifi cate of Benedict XI (1303–04), Philip pressured the college of cardinals to elect the bishop of Bordeaux pope, who took the name Clement V (1305–14). Clement moved the papacy to Avignon in southern France, thus beginning the era of the “Babylonian Captivity” of the church. Philip’s ruthlessness and ambition, clearly evident in his handling of Boniface VIII, were fueled by lawyers and other advisers who implemented his policy. Unscrupulous and apparently unfettered by morality, men such as Guillaume de Nogaret championed a view of royal power and authority that left no room for rivals. We need look no further than Philip’s treatment of the Jews or of the order of the Knights Templar in France. Running short of money to fi nance his wars, 326 Philip IV Philip IV established a royal treasury and developed the royal court known as the Parlement, making justice available to all. in 1306 Philip ordered the Jews out of France, confi scated their property, and took over the collection of all the debts owed to them. The following year he set about systematically destroying the wealthy and powerful Templars, who had become large fi nanciers of the royal debt. By 1312 Philip, backed by Clement V in Avignon, had destroyed this once proud military order in France, executing many of its members on charges of heresy and confi scating their wealth for the royal coffers. Both the reach and effi ciency of royal government grew under Philip. He showed great acumen in developing the tools of government that enabled him to rule effi - ciently. He established the Chambre des Comptes, or the royal treasury, and developed the royal court known as the Parlement, which made royal justice available to nobles and burghers alike. Collectively Philip’s rule marked the apogee of the late medieval monarchy in France. See also Avignonese papacy. Further reading: Strayer, Joseph R. The Reign of Philip IV. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980; Henneman, John B. ed., The Medieval French Monarchy. Hinsdale, IL.: Dryden Press, 1973. Ronald K. Delph Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) humanist and philosopher Pico della Mirandola was born to wealth and nobility in Mirandola, Italy, on February 24, 1463. After receiving a humanistic education at Mirandola, he studied canon law at Bologna. Dissatisfi ed with his studies, he left Bologna to pursue his lifelong interest, philosophy, at Ferrara, Padua, and Paris. Pico’s desire to establish concordance among the major philosophies led him to explore Greek, Latin, Averroist, and Hebrew thought, including Kabbalah. His knowledge of Kabbalah, an esoteric and mystical form of Judaism, came largely from his associations with Renaissance Jews and recent converts to Christianity from Judaism. Pico’s ardent interest in Kabbalah and his casting of it as a harbinger of Christianity have led some scholars to consider him the fi rst Christian Kabbalist of the Italian Renaissance. He was also versed in the symbolic use of numbers and magic, although he was careful to distinguish between natural magic, which he espoused, and its demonic form. Unlike some of his contemporaries, Pico found aspects of medieval Scholasticism compatible with his philosophical outlook. Pico was a participant in Lorenzo de’ Medici’s Platonic Academy, an informal conversation circle in Florence that was led by the Neoplatonist Marsilio Ficino. In his last years he was a convert to the teachings of the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola, the self-styled messenger of God whose moral fervor held sway over the Florentine populace and its government in the latter part of the 15th century. Pico’s writings are extensive. Among them are Italian love sonnets, Latin poems, a commentary on Genesis, and a treatise against astrology. Pico wrote a critique of Girolamo Benivieni’s On Heavenly Love in which he distinguished between earthly physical love and heavenly chaste love. Another treatise deals with the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. His most famous works are his 900 Conclusions and his Oration on the Dignity of Man. The Conclusions were meant to be the centerpiece for a colloquium in Rome. They consist of 900 theses that embody much of his philosophical and religious thought and include propositions on Kabbalah. The conference was never held. Innocent VIII condemned the propositions and Pico was forced to fl ee to France, where he was jailed for a short time. He was freed through the intercession of Lorenzo de’ Medici and later exonerated by Alexander VI. Pico’s Oration was intended to be the introduction to his Conclusions. The Oration asserts that at the time of creation, God had utilized all the attributes at his command to form the heavens, the earth, and the animals. Having nothing left, God gave to humans the power to create their own nature. They could descend to the level of a beast or ascend to the divine. The Oration is acclaimed for its affi rmation of human potential and is regarded by many scholars as the epitome of Renaissance humanism. Pico was working on a critique of astrology shortly before his death in Florence on November 17, 1494. Pico is buried in the church of San Marco in Florence. See also Averroës; Petrarch. Further reading: Craven, William G. Pico della Mirandola, Symbol of His Age: Modern Interpretations of a Renaissance Philosopher. Geneva: Libraire Droz, 1981; Kristeller, Paul O. Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964; Wirszubski, Chaim. Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with Jewish Mysticism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Louis B. Gimelli Pico della Mirandola 327 Pius II See Rome, papacy in Renaissance. Pizan, Christine de (1365–1430) author Christine de Pizan is one of the few women who had prominence as a secular writer during a time when women were neither educated nor independent. If a woman was literate, she participated in a religious order either as a nun, anchoress, or Beguine. Christine was born in Venice to parents who had both been educated at Bologna. When she was fi ve her family moved to France so that her father, Tommaso di Benvenuto da Pizzano, a physician and astrologer, could work as a councilor to King Charles V. In Paris they changed their name to the French, Pizan. Her mother wanted her to learn domestic skills but her father believed that it would benefi t her to learn how to read and write. In the milieu of a court that had an immense library, she learned Italian, French, and some Latin. When she was 15 years old, she married Étienne du Castel, a nobleman and courtier who became the king’s secretary. But that same year Charles V died and her father lost his position, and with it the high income. Her father died in 1387 and three years later her husband died, leaving her with the burden of three small children. Instead of remarrying, she decided to enlarge upon her studies. Fortunately she was allowed access to the libraries of the courts. In 1394 she began to write and sell her poems and receive commissions by patrons of the court. Since she worked where manuscripts were prepared, her contacts were through the court of the duke Louis d’Orléans. She embarked on a quest to learn both literary and practical matters, enough to protect herself fi nancially from predatory creditors. Her widowed mother, also dependent on her, cared for her children while she threw herself into literature, philosophy, and anything she could learn. In 1397 her daughter, Marie, went to the Abbey of Poissy to live as a companion to the daughter of Charles VI. In 1402 she wrote The Tale of the Rose, a poem that challenged the negative attitudes toward women in a book with a similar title, The Romance of the Rose. As Christine continued to write poetry and prose, a feminist voice emerged. In Epistle to the God of Love (Epistre au dieu d’Amours), she rebutted the traditional negative beliefs and ideas about women by writing that the evils attributed to women were a product of men’s minds, not reality. In The Book of the City of Ladies (Livre de la cité des dames)(1404) she created a utopian world where women had power and control and proved by logic that many of the negative myths regarding the female sex were false. Its sequel, The Treasure of the City of Ladies, was different, written specifi cally for upper-class women and members of the court, to give them advice on managing their homes during their husbands’ absences. In this book she cautioned against dishonest governors and protecting one’s rights as a landowner so that unscrupulous agents would not take advantage of a woman’s status. She was knowledgeable in farming and spoke to the role of women as housekeepers in a time when their domain included fi elds, crops, laborers, and maids. She gave advice on the psychology of hiring people to work in the vineyards. She stressed self-discipline in managing the laborers by rising as early as they did and watching how they worked. “The good housekeeper must keep her eyes wide open.” Christine was well acquainted with the chores involved in livestock maintenance, as well as agriculture. Every detail of the work involved in a responsible woman’s life was spelled out. The animals on the farm required maids to milk them and care for the milk. Those women also took care of the kitchen, preparing meals for the other help, cleaning and weeding the garden, gathering herbs, and cooking for the other workers. She stressed that the mistress of a domestic enterprise should constantly be watchful. At about the same time Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy, asked her to write the offi cial posthumous biography of Charles V. On November 30, 1404, she fi nished the work, which was entitled Le livre des fais et bonners meurs du sage roy Charles V. Between the writing of his biography and 1415, she wrote on a variety of subjects, including warfare and the military. In 1410, she wrote Lamentations on the Civil War, and in 1413, the Book of Peace, imploring the people to forget war and bond in friendship. The Battle of Agincourt (1415) was particularly devastating and probably infl uenced her decision to enter a nunnery. One of her last efforts was a writing inspired by the heroic deeds of Joan of Arc. In 1418 she entered a Dominican convent at Poissy and spent the rest of her life there, continuing to write. Further reading: Amt, Emilie, ed. Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1993; Boxer, Marilyn, and Jean H. Quataert. Connecting Spheres: Women in the Western World, 1500 to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987; Duby, Georges, M. Perrot, and P. S. Patel, eds. A History of Women in the West. Cambridge: Belknap, 1994; Labalme, Patricia A., ed. Beyond Their Sex: 328 Pius II Learned Women of the European Past. New York: New York University Press, 1980. Lana Thompson Poland The history of the kingdom of Poland is traditionally dated from 966, when the 31-year-old Mieszko I, of the Piast dynasty of the Polans tribe, was baptized into Christianity. The country derived its name from his tribe. He was married to Dobrawa, the daughter of Bolesław (Boleslas) I of Bohemia, a strategic nuptial alliance that brought him a relationship with the Holy Roman Empire in his feuding with the Wieletes and Volinians. Wichman, count of Saxony, who was also a noble of the empire, backed them. Thus Mieszko’s marriage gave him a strong counterweight to his enemies. Most likely his conversion to Christianity was a prerequisite to the marriage. In a move designed to cement his diplomatic position, Mieszko I also swore allegiance to Emperor Otto I the Great. This was essential to his plans for expansion of Piast lands. In 955, 10 years before Mieszko I’s conversion, Otto had cemented his primacy throughout central and eastern Europe. In 955 he decisively defeated the invading Magyar tribe at the Battle of the Lechfeld, near Aubsburg in Bohemia. As David Eggenberger writes in An Encylopedia of Battles, “the Germans crushed the Magyars with heavy losses in a tenhour battle. The decimated barbarians fell back across modern Austria.” They settled in what became Hungary, which still recalls its heritage on its postage stamps with the inscription Magyar Posta. By his death in 992 Mieszko I had considerably expanded his realm, including not only what was then known as Little and Greater Poland, but also Pomerania and Silesia. Throughout his reign, he assured himself of at least the quiet complicity of the Holy Roman Empire, by swearing allegiance, after Otto I, to the emperors Otto II and III. As a loyal vassal he supplied troops to Otto III in his campaign against the Polabians, Slavic tribesmen who lived along the Elbe River. Mieszko I was succeeded by his son Bolesław the Brave, his son by Dobrawa. (He also had children by his second consort, Oda, three sons: Mieszko, Lambert, and Swietopełk.) Bolesław continued his father’s wars for Piast aggrandizement. In 999 he seized Moravia and next conquered Slovakia. When in 1002 Otto III died prematurely at the age of 22, Boleslas took the ultimate gamble and attacked the Holy Roman Empire while it was in a succession crisis for the throne. Emperor Henry II, duke of Bavaria, was ultimately crowned emperor in the place of his deceased cousin in June 1002. Bolesław’s aggression against the empire set off a series of struggles between him and Henry II, which would eventually lead to a compromise peace in 1018. Bolesław was compelled to return Bohemia to the empire, although the empire was recognizing Bolesław’s strength, and Henry did not contest Bolesław’s keeping Lusatia and Misnia. He wisely pledged allegiance to the emperor. But in 1025 a year after Henry II’s death, Bolesław crowned himself the fi rst king of Poland and freed himself of any feudal obligation to serve the emperor. His son Mieszko II, who had already gained experience by ruling the city of Kraków for his father, succeeded Bolesław. Mieszko II, seven years after he became king of Poland, resumed his father’s assault on the empire. The duchy of Kiev, under Yaroslav the Wise, not forgetting Bolesław’s intervention, made common cause with the Emperor Conrad II, so that Poland was invaded from both the east and west. First forced to fl ee to Bohemia, Mieszko II eventually reconquered his kingdom and, after swearing allegiance to Conrad, was able to resume the kingship. He was assassinated in 1034, most likely the victim of a plot by the Polish nobility. Casimir (Kazimierz) I succeeded his father as king and, unlike his father and grandson, followed a policy of peace and reconciliation. A peasant revolt followed the murder of his father and, taking advantage of the turmoil, the Czechs invaded in the south. What was then known as Greater Poland was so devastated that the royal capital became Kraków in Little Poland, which apparently was considered loyal to Casimir and to his father before him. Prior to the choice of Kraków, the kingdom had had no real center of administration. The new Emperor Henry III, however, feared the growing anarchy in Poland and eastern Europe, concerned that the unrest could spread to Imperial lands. Consequently he negotiated a peace among the belligerents, which confi rmed Casimir as king of Poland in the fi rst year of his reign, 1046. Confi rmed by the emperor, Casimir served as king of Poland until 1058. Upon the death of Casimir, Poland entered a period of instability, a condition that would appear throughout much of the country’s history. Casimir’s son Bolesław II ruled as duke from 1058 and was only crowned king in 1076. Three years later he was forced into exile. His brother Ladislas (Władysław) I Herman succeeded him; however he soon resigned the kingship. Bolesław III, the Poland 329 son of Ladislas, was able to restore the royal authority in Poland, and effective government was restored. Bolesław III reigned from 1102 to 1138 and even succeeded in defeating the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V twice in battle. However out of diplomatic expediency, he later swore allegiance to the Emperor Lothair II, Henry’s son. MONGOL INVASIONS The death of Bolesław in 1138 signaled the beginning of almost 200 years of domestic strife, as rival members of the Piast dynasty struggled for supremacy. Poland, which under Miesko I had been a dominant power in eastern Europe, was reduced to a small player in international affairs. The explosion of the Mongols into Europe in 1240 destroyed the entire strategic balance in eastern and central Europe. In 1223 during the reign of Genghis Khan, the Mongol warlord Subotai had smashed the Kievan army in the Battle of the Kalka River. In December 1237 the Mongols took Riazan and began a systematic campaign of crushing the Russian city-states. On December 6, 1240, according to Eggenberger, the Mongols stormed into Kiev, “plundering and killing at will. Kiev was burned to the ground.” This time, rather than making a large raid as the invasion of 1223 really had been, the Mongols had come to stay. While Subotai and Batu Khan continued west, directly threatening weakened Poland, the khanate of the Golden Horde was established on the “lower Volga,” according to Eggenberger. “For most of two centuries, most of Russia south of Novgorod lay under Asiatic suzerainty.” After the conquest of Russia Subotai and Batu headed directly into Poland and Hungary, having divided their army into three parts. Fighting for Ogotai Khan, who had succeeded Genghis Khan in 1227 as the great khan in 1241, the Mongols virtually crushed the military power of eastern Europe, leaving Piast Poland in serious jeopardy. During the Mongol (or Tatar) assault on Poland, they headed toward the city of Kraków. There one of the truly heroic episodes of military history took place. On the Rynek Glowny, or Main Market Square, stood St. Mary’s Church. According to Polish legend, an elderly watchman saw the Mongols approaching and sounded the trumpet call of the Hejnal to alert the town. Since the trumpet was played regularly, nobody was alarmed at fi rst. But when he played it over and over, the townspeople became alarmed. Suddenly, the trumpeter stopped playing. They saw the Mongols coming closer, and volleys of arrows from Polish archers drove them back. After the battle, somebody climbed up to the tower and found the old watchman dead, a Mongol arrow through his throat. In honor of his saving the city, the Hejnal is played every hour. THE ORDER OF TEUTONIC KNIGHTS The power vacuum created by the implosion of Piast Poland also faced another threat from the west, a condition that would mark Polish history. In 1190 the Teutonic Knights, an order of crusaders, was established. Pope Celestine III confi rmed the order as a religious order of knights in 1196, as did Innocent III in 1199. Yet unlike the Knights Templars and the Knights Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights would not make a name for themselves in the Holy Land. Instead, as H. W. Koch writes in Medieval Warfare, the Teutonic Knights “remained a purely German movement . . . particularly in the context of its long-term development of the German east.” The Teutonic Knights’ drive to the east became a permanent threat to the stability of Poland and the Lithuanian princes to the east. Conrad (Konrad) of Masovia, son of Casimir II of Poland, asked the Teutonic Knights for their aid against the fi erce and pagan Prussian tribes. In order to bring the Teutonic Knights to accept his offer, he ceded to them Polish territory around Kulm on the Vistula River. As crusaders, the order was happy enough to take on the Prussians at the request of the Polish ruler. Pope Honorius III in 1226 issued the Bull of Rimini to give papal backing to the coming war against the Prussians, in fact raising it to the status of a crusade. But, along with the crusade against the Prussians, the Bull of Rimini gave the order rights to make its fi rst expansion into Polish territory. The land around Lobau and Kulm was speedily converted by 1230, and Conrad of Masovia, apparently seeing no threat to Polish sovereignty, obligingly handed it over to the Teutonic Knights. By the time that the grand master of the order, Hermann von Salza, died in 1239, Koch notes, “the Order controlled more than a hundred miles of the Baltic coast.” A Prussian uprising took the order by surprise in 1261, and it was not until 1271 that the order gained the upper hand. But when it did, the Teutonic Knights again focused on their expansion eastward. Danzig became part of the realm of the knights, and in 1309 Grand Master Siegfried von Feuchtwangen made the expansion a defi nite war aim of the Teutonic Order, while Ladislas Łokietek (Elbow-high) was the king of Poland. Ironically it was under Wladyslaw that Poland began to regain its unity and strength. The fi rst open clash between the Poles and the order came in 1311, when the order supported John of Luxembourg, the king of Bohemia, in his bid for the crown against Ladislas. John and 330 Poland the order were defeated, but the war marked the onset of almost a constant state of tension and intermittent fi ghting between the Teutonic Order, the Ordenstaat, and the Polish monarchy. Casimir III of Poland began to rebuild his country’s military position in the 1340s for what began to look like an ultimate reckoning with the Teutonic Knights. In 1385 Jogaila (Jagiello), the grand duke of Lithuania, married Queen Jadwiga of Poland, converting to Christianity. He ruled Poland as Ladislas (Władysław) II. In 1226 Lithuania had become united when the Lithuanians under their leader, Mindaugas, had defeated the Livonian Knights of the Sword (allies of the Teutonic Knights), at Siaulai. This marriage, the result of the Union of Krewo, established the Jagiello dynasty and became the foundation of Polish resistance to the territorial expansion of the order. Meanwhile the rule of the order had grown more oppressive, through both taxation and demands on military service, to persecute the war against the Poles and their Lithuanian allies. Both Prussians and Pomeranians looked to their former enemies, the now united Poles and Lithuanians, for relief against the Ordenstaat. In 1407 his brother Ulrich, who showed contempt for the abilities of the Poles and Lithuanians to confront the Ordenstaat, succeeded Grand Master Konrad von Jungingen. In 1410 the order’s grand master Ulrich von Jungingen decided to force the issue before Wladislaus II and a Polish-Lithuanian force could reach the order’s headquarters at Marienberg in Prussia. On July 15 the Teutonic Knights met the combined Polish and Lithuanian forces at Tannenberg, or Grunwald. Wladislaus’s cousin, the grand duke Vytautas of Lithuania, commanded the actual Polish fi eld army. In the fi erce combat that followed, as Koch writes in Medieval Warfare, “the Poles concentrated their attack at one point of the German front, broke through and then with their numerical superiority of 3:1 engulfed the army of the Teutonic Order and defeated it.” Although Tannenberg was the decisive battle of the war, the knights did not surrender or cede their territory, and the struggle was continued by Ulrich’s successor Heinrich von Plauen, the 24th grand master of the Teutonic Order. For over 50 years hostilities continued between Poland and the order. At the same time among the Prussians and Pomeranians, resentment continued against the exactions of the Ordenstaat. Finally the situation became untenable for the Teutonic Knights. In 1454 the Prussians directly approached King Casimir IV of Poland for aid in throwing off the order’s rule. In what became known as the Thirteen Years’ War, the Prussian Confederation fought with Casimir IV against the Teutonic Order. Lithuania, the ally of Tannenberg, was also at war with Poland but did not side with the order. In one of the fi rst battles of the war at Chojnice in April 1454, Casimir IV was defeated in his attempt to take the city by the order and mercenaries under Bernard Szumborski in its pay. Eventually, however, the prolonged struggle outstripped the ability of the order to continue the fi ght. Pope Paul II, with both warring parties being Roman Catholics, stepped in to help negotiate a settlement. By the terms of the Treaty of Thorun in 1466, the order ceded control of Prussia. Prussia became a vassal state of the Polish Crown under King Casimir IV, who now ruled a unifi ed Poland, which would emerge as the strongest state in eastern Europe. Further reading: Bernstein, Carl, and Marco Politi. His Holiness: John Paul II and the History of Our Time. New York: Penguin Books, 1996; Eggenberger, David. An Encylopedia of Battles. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1985; Grousset, René. The Empires Of The Steppes: A History of Central Asia. Trans. by Naomi Walford, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970. John F. Murphy, Jr. Polo, Marco (1254–c. 1323) explorer and author Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, lived for many years in Mongol-ruled China and wrote about what he witnessed there. He is the best known of the many medieval European traders and priests who traveled in Asia beyond its Mediterranean and Black Sea ports. When he was a child, his father and an uncle visited China. They returned with a letter from the emperor to the pope. When the two Polo brothers made a second journey to China, they took Marco with them, then in his teens. He spent nearly two decades, from the early 1270s to the early 1290s, in China, where he became a favorite of Kubilai Khan, of the Mongol Yuan dynasty (1279–1368). After Marco Polo returned to Italy, he introduced Europe to the wonders of Cathay, his name for China. Using notes as well as memory, he described what he had learned in a book written in collaboration with an experienced writer, Rustichello of Pisa, while both men were prisoners of war in Genoa. Writing in a French-Italian dialect, Rustichello adapted Polo’s story to the fashionable genre of chivalric romance. Immediately popular, the book was translated into Latin and several vernacular languages during Polo’s lifetime. Polo, Marco 331 In some ways the book written by Polo with Rustichello is not as informative as another well-known book by a medieval traveler, Ibn Batuta. It is a frustratingly impersonal book. Despite the title Travels of Marco Polo, it offers few details about the routes by which Polo traveled to China and back to Europe, or the dangers and discomforts that he experienced. Probably the claim that each of the journeys took several years is a literary device to emphasize how distant China was from Europe. If someone traveled continuously, such a journey probably took about nine months. In the book there is a bit of ethnography (for instance, religions practiced) and economics (such as the use of paper money), but most of its pages comprise a geographical map of China, especially its rich cities. Europeans learned from Polo that, compared with their own societies, China was an enormous country, much more wealthy and much more advanced in methods of technology, government, and warfare. Although inaccurate in what he said about Japan, Polo was the first European to mention the existence of the island country. Scholars have sometimes doubted that Polo traveled farther east than Persia, where he could have obtained secondhand news about China. He ignored topics that modern readers would expect, such as the Great Wall of China, foot binding, tea drinking, and the Chinese method of writing. Although he claimed to have been a great favorite of the emperor, Chinese governmental records say nothing about him. Polo provided Per- 332 Polo, Marco Marco Polo sets out from Venice for the Far East with his father and an uncle. In the foreground are depictions of the lands they will visit. An illustration reproduced from a 14th-century manuscript. sian names for Chinese places, not Chinese names. On balance the evidence supports the truthfulness of the book, although a few passages are inventions, perhaps attempts by Rustichello to add interest to what otherwise could have been dull lists of facts. Although Polo spoke and read several languages, he did not know Chinese or, for that matter, Latin. He mostly lived at the Mongol court in northern China, where Persian was widely used, and where the Mongol emperor often trusted foreign adventurers more than he did his Chinese subjects. When Polo died, he left mementos of his travels, including the gold tablet that served as a kind of pass from the emperor or great khan to help the Polo family in their westward journey. Further reading: Haw, Stephen G. Marco Polo’s China: A Venetian in the Realm of Khubilai Khan. New York: Routledge, 2005; Larner, John. Marco Polo and the Discovery of the World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999; Wood, Frances. Did Marco Polo Go to China? Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996. David M. Fahey Portugal Were it not for the tireless efforts of the Portuguese throughout the 15th century in exploring the West African coast, the history of Europe, and the world, might have been discernibly different. The Portuguese impulse to explore and trade led eventually to the rounding of the African horn, or Cape of Good Hope, by Bartolomeu Diás in 1488, and the epoch-making voyage to India by Vasco da Gama from 1497 to 1499. These voyages and discoveries gave Europeans direct access to the spice market of Asia and dealt a serious economic blow to Europe’s enemies, the Muslims. In seeking “Christians and spices” in Africa and Asia the Portuguese hoped to fi nd allies against their centuries-old foes and to deprive the Muslims of the wealth made possible by these much sought after commodities. All of this occurred in the 15th and 16th centuries when Portugal was able to use its early penetration of the Asian market to their great advantage. They did this while Spain, England, France, and the future Dutch Republic were variously occupied with either independence or dominance in Europe. The area now known as Portugal has been inhabited for as long as the Neanderthals are known to have lived in Europe, some 500,000 years ago. Settled by the Phoenicians during the Iron Age, this area of the Iberian Peninsula was taken by the Romans from the Carthaginians in the third century b.c.e., during the Second Punic War. In 194 b.c.e. a rebellion broke out against the Romans led by one Viriathus, the leader of the Lusitanians, and other native tribes. Viriathus’s assassination by his own ambassador to the Romans eventually quelled the rebellion, and the Romans then made Lusitania into a Roman colony that prospered for centuries. In the fi fth century c.e. the Germanic tribes that were harassing all of Europe also invaded the Iberian Peninsula. The Suevi, the Vandals, and the Alans made up the fi rst wave of Germanic invasion into Lusitania. In the sixth century c.e. the Visigoths, another German tribe, defeated the Suevi and captured its capital of Bracara (modern-day Braga). The previous German invaders were either expelled or integrated into the Visigothic culture and hierarchy. In 711 Islamic forces from North Africa conquered the Visigothic kingdom, forcing the Visigoths to the far north. For the next fi ve centuries the nascent Portuguese nation would struggle to regain this area of the peninsula, a struggle that is commonly known as the reconquista. The papacy recognized Portugal as an independent kingdom in 1143. Then in 1179 the pope declared Afonso I king of Portugal. Finally in c. 1249 the southernmost area of present-day Portugal, known as the Algarve, was recovered from the Moors. In 1255 the capital of Portugal was moved to Lisbon, its present-day capital. After the era of exploration and discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Portuguese entered a period of decline, or decadência, in the 17th century. There were many factors to explain this perceived decline, such as Spanish rule over Portugal from 1580 to 1640, diminishing returns from their colonies around the world, and the increased competition of Portugal’s European neighbors for dominance over these colonies. Portugal never again achieved the imperial heights it possessed in the 15th and 16th centuries. See also Henry “The Navigator,” Prince; Reconquest of Spain. Further reading: Birmingham, David. A Concise History of Portugal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Livermore, H.V. A New History of Portugal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976; Marques, A. H. de Oliveira. History of Portugal. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Jeffery L. Irvin, Jr. Portugal 333 Printing, invention in China Paper and printing were both invented by the Chinese, with immense importance for the advancement of civilization in China and worldwide. Papermaking was invented in China around 100 c.e.. The technology spread to the Muslim world in the eighth century by Chinese papermakers taken prisoners by Muslims in Central Asia; it spread to Spain by the Moors in the 12th century. In 175 leaders of the Han dynasty (202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.) ordered that the Confucian classics be engraved on stone slabs to ensure their correct transmission. Scholars began to make rubbings from the stones with paper; copies made from rubbings were the precursors of block printing. The popularity of Buddhism in China in the post-Han centuries created a demand for printed charms, holy pictures, and religious texts by the pious. The earliest printed books were made during the Tang (T’ang) dynasty (618–909). They were Buddhist texts carved onto pear-wood blocks, which were inked with India ink (made with soot from oil lamps). A sheet of paper was pressed over the block, which became a printed page. Some Tang era printed texts (including a copy of the Diamond Sutra printed in 868) have been preserved in the caves in Dunhuang (Tun-huang), an important early center of Chinese Buddhism in northwestern China. Feng Dao (Feng Tao) is regarded in China as the publisher of the fi rst books. He lived in the 10th century in Chengdu (Chengtu) in Sichuan (Szechwan) province, then a center of the printing industry. He received a commission from the government and spent 21 years between 932 and 953 editing and printing a set of the Confucian classics. Since Confucianism was China’s state ideology and school curriculum and the state examinations were based on the Confucian canons, it was important for the government to issue a defi nitive text. The technology quickly spread to Korea and Japan. Private printers were soon printing histories, Buddhist and Daoist (Taoist) treatises, and other works, using both wood and metal blocks. Under the Song (Sung) dynasty (960–1279) Chinese printed books reached their high point. The next step in printing was development of the movable type, which a contemporary work credits to a man named Bi Sheng (Pi Sheng), who experimented with movable fonts made of iron during the 1040s. This invention made books more available and cheaper. In 970 the printing press in China began to print money, the fi rst country to use paper currency. Paper currency was common during the following Yuan dynasty (1279–1368), and it was one of the marvels Marco Polo described in the book of his travels. Papermaking spread from China westward via the Silk Road, to the Arabs in the eighth century, and the Arabs spread the technology to Europe. The fi rst paper mill in Europe was built in France in 1189. Printing also spread westward from China during the 13th century when China met Europe under the Mongol empire. See also Gutenberg, Johann. Further reading: Carter, Thomas F. The Invention of Printing in China and its Spread Westward. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955; Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin. Written on Bamboo and Silk, The Beginning of Chinese Books and Inscriptions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2004. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Puranas The puranas (ancient lore) are a genre of the religious literature of India. They were the scriptural basis for the development of many of the Hindu sects. The name purana is derived from a Sanskrit word meaning “old stories.” There are a great many puranas, but only 18 are considered as the authoritative core of the form of Hindu sacred writing, known as the Puranas. They developed into the popular literature about gods and goddesses (such as Sati and Parvati) to which the people even of the lowest castes could become devoted (bhakti). The Puranas are smriti (remembered) texts. The Vedas, in contrast, were shruti (heard) by the ancient rishis (holy men). The Vedas were for the “twice born” of the highest caste and were felt to not be for the lower castes. The Puranas became the sacred literature of many of the lower castes for whom the Vedas were a closed book. Tradition set the main Puranas as the great 18 (mahapurana). There are an enormous number of upapuranas (secondary or smaller puranas). Eighteen upapuranas were chosen to be the Upa-Paranas, which attached “beneath” their respective purana. The vast body of writings that became the Puranas began as a body of oral traditions. Since they were not the exclusive preserve of a priestly class they enjoyed wide circulation. As a result there are many versions and variants of the Puranas. Some of these can be traced to the Mauryan dynasty. However, the Puranas are only clearly known historically from the Gupta dynasty (c. 320–500) and beyond. 334 Printing, invention in China The Puranas tell about the gods and goddesses of India. They are chiefl y concerned with the divine order of the world, which is told in stories. These stories are often theogonies, cosmogonies, and cosmologies that explain the origin of the gods and the world. They also include legends about ancient kings, saints, and royal dynasties. Some sections are devoted to law, science, history, medicine, dance, and religious discussions on iconography and astrology. They form the basis of Hindu mythology. The Puranas are central to bhakti (devotion) in Hindu religious development and practice. They are the central scriptures for the worshipers of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva (Siva). The Puranas have been organized into Bhramana-Puranas, Vishnava-Puranas, and Shaiva- Puranas. In the Puranas the Trimurti (three modes of the one ultimate) of Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver), and Shiva (destroyer) are presented in ways that related to the common people. This enabled them to develop a vital spirituality. There are six Brahmana-Puranas: Brahma-Purana, Brahmavaivarta-Purana, Vamana-Purana, Brahmanda- Purana, Markandeya-Purana and Bhavishya-Purana. The six Vaishnava-Puranas are Vishnu-Purana, Bhagavata- Purana, Padma-Purana, Narada-Purana, Garuda- Purana, and Varaha-Purana. The six Shaiva-Puranas are Matsya-Purana, Linga- Purana, Skanda-Purana, Kurma-Purana, Shiva-Purana, and Agni-Purana. The devotees of each of the three Trimurti separated themselves into sects of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. However, almost everyone who became a devotee chose either Vishnu or Shiva. The oldest Purana is the Vayu-Purana. Some scholars believe that it originated in the 500s. Most Puranas developed between the 500s to the 1300s. The Vayu-Purana is substituted for the Agni-Purana on occasions. The most famous of the Puranas are the Vishnu-Purana and the Bhagavata-Purana. The Bhagavata-Purana (10th century) was written in south India. It tells the story of Krishna. In it he declares that devoted hearts move him more than yoga, brilliant logic, Vedic chanting, ascetic practices, or brilliant logic. It has been of enormous importance in the religious development of India. The Puranas are set in the Kali Yuga or post-Vedic age, tradition said began in 3102 b.c.e. The Puranas assume that it is a period of degeneration. Human spirituality has reached a low ebb; however, the gods (devas) give mercy to humanity through devotion (bhakti). Most of the Puranas have fi ve characteristics (pancha- lakshana) or themes. The themes are creation, destruction, and renewal of the world; genealogies of gods and heroes (vamsa); the deeds of various gods and heroes (vamsyanucarita); the rule of the various Manus during the various stages of human development, and the life and works of the descendants of the Manus (manvantara). Some Puranas, however, do not carry this form. Many of them are like encyclopedias— fi lled with a mass of material on a variety of subjects. In addition to the Puranas and the Upa-Puranas there are a number of Sthala-Puranas. The Sthala-Puranas are associated with the history and spiritual power of sacred sites (sthala). Further reading: Pusalker, Achut Dattatraya. Studies in the Epics and Puranas. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1963; Rocher, Ludo. The Puranas. Wiesbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 1986; Vettammani, X. Puranic Encyclopedia: A Comprehensive Dictionary with Special Reference to the Epic and Puranic Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1975; Wilson, H. H. The Vishnu Purana: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1961. Andrew J. Waskey

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

Panipat, Battles of There were three battles fought at Panipat, located 70 miles northwest of Delhi, the strategically important city in northern India and capital of many dynasties. The first one was in 1526 between Ibrahim Lodi, Afghan ruler of the Kingdom of Delhi, and Babur from Ferghana in Central Asia via Afghanistan. The second battle was fought between Akbar’s (grandson of Babur) forces and those of the grandson of Sher Shah (who had driven Humayun, son of Babur, from India). The third battle took place in 1761 when the Afghans under Ahmad Shah defeated the Maratha Confederacy. First Battle of Panipat A fugitive from his birthplace Ferghana, Babur led an army variously cited as 12,000 or 25,000 men from Afghanistan into India and met Ibrahim, ruler of the Lodi dynasty (originally from Afghanistan) that ruled north-central India. Ibrahim headed a much larger army reputedly 100,000 strong with either 100 or 1,000 elephants. At Panipat, Babur prepared for battle by lashing together 700 carts with leather thongs to form a barricade and placing his matchlock men behind them. Just as Ibrahim’s charging troops were stopped at the barricade and mowed down by the gunfire of Babur’s men, they were set upon on both flanks by arrows from Babur’s cavalry. In the ensuing rout, 20,000 of Ibrahim’s men died, he among them. Babur ordered Ibrahim buried where he fell; his tomb still stands at the site. That afternoon Babur sent his eldest son, Humayun, to the Lodi capital at Agra to secure its treasures while he marched to Delhi, where he proclaimed himself emperor, founding the Mughal (Mogul, Moghul) dynasty in India. Second Battle of Panipat Akbar died in 1530 soon after establishing the Mughal Empire in northern India. His son and successor was Humayun, whose heavy drinking and opium eating habits rendered him unfit to rule. Driven out of India by an able general of Afghan origin, Sher Shah, he found refuge in Persia. It was only after Sher Shah’s death and with his descendants fighting among one another for the succession that Humayun was able to return to India in 1555, with Persian aid, to restore his fortunes. He died a year later. On November 5, 1556, Akbar, Humayun’s 13-year-old son, and his mentor, Bairan Khan, met the forces of Hemu, a powerful Hindu general, at the second Battle of Panipat. Hemu was injured, captured, and executed. With that victory Akbar entered Delhi. This battle resurrected the fortune of the Mughals in India. Third Battle of Panipat Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) was a devout Muslim and persecutor of Hindus. Hindus of the Deccan rallied around a charismatic leader named Shivaji who was proclaimed king of the Marathas in 1674. His movement continued to gain momentum after his death in 1680, reaching its zenith in the mid- 18th century when the Marathas Confederacy controlled lands extending from Hyderabad in the south to Punjab in the north. But the quest for a restored Hindu empire in India came to an end in 1761 when the Marathas were badly defeated by Afghan forces under Shah Durani at the Third Battle of Panipat. Although the Afghans retreated from India, the Maratha Confederacy never recovered. The British East India Company was the beneficiary and gradually supplanted the by-now-defunct Mughal Empire and the warring Indian factions. See also Delhi and Agra. Further reading: Richards, John F. The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Thackston, Salman M., trans., ed. The Baburnama, Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. New York: Modern Library, 1996. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Peasants’ War The Peasants’ War in Germany was a series of conflicts among the various princes in Germany and those who worked under them during a time of both economic and religious change in Germany. The best known and documented conflict surrounds Thomas Müntzer and the revolt in the region of Thuringia in Germany. The early 1500s was a time of many changes in Germany. In general, the economy was good, and the peasant farmers were able to provide for themselves and their families reasonably well. There was little central authority in Germany, and each region was ruled by a prince, who had varying amounts of authority and power. This power was tested in small rebellions by the peasants and townspeople, often with negotiated settlements rather than wholesale slaughter as a result. Peasants were the lowest members of society and had few rights. Generally they worked mines or farmed land and raised livestock belonging to a prince or nobleman, could not marry without permission, did not own any land, and were taxed heavily. At much the same level were plebeians, or commoners, townsmen who worked for craftsmen or merchants at subsistence levels or were unemployed. Various religious movements were also having influence on the peasants. Since the time of the bubonic plague with all of the attendant death, there was a rising expectation of the end times prophesied in the book of Revelation in the Bible. Throughout the previous century, small movements and figures rose, prophesying that Christ’s return was imminent. A very different religious movement, the Reformation, began in 1517 in Wittenberg, Germany, when the young monk Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the castle church door. In his early writings, Luther spoke moderately to both prince and peasant, but many peasants took encouragement from his challenge to the centralized authority of the Roman Catholic Church, advocating a strong role for the local congregation. Their hope was that the local town or trade association would also be strengthened, especially over against the princes. At the same time, the Reformation heightened the end-time expectations. In 1522, Luther himself had to come out of hiding at Wartburg at great personal risk to deal with the three Zwickau prophets: Thomas Dreschel, Mark Thomas Stübner, and Nicolas Storch. The three men were agitating the citizens of Wittenberg with their Anabaptist leanings and prophetic visions. Luther succeeded in having them sent out of the city, but that would not be the last time he would have to deal with them. Conflict between peasant and prince was not unusual. In the early 1520s, there were riots of peasants and other classes in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. Causes were many—for example, in the summer of 1524 revolt broke out in Stühlingen in southern Germany over the countess’s command to gather snail shells on which to wind her yarn. But the major spark that set off significant battles came in 1524 when Thomas Müntzer returned from Zwickau and Bohemia and began his preaching in the Thuringian city of Allstedt in central Germany. Müntzer, a former Roman Catholic priest who had wrestled with his faith, had become Lutheran soon after the Reformation began in 1517. In 1520, he ended up in Zwickau and there met Niklas Storch, a weaver with apocalyptic expectations of Christ’s imminent return. Persuaded by Storch’s convictions, Müntzer soon became the preacher in a church attended by many of Storch’s coworkers. Storch had been proclaiming that the end times were near, that the righteous would soon begin to rise up against the unrighteous (seen as those in authority) and commence the last days prophesied in the book of Revelation. Müntzer, as a priest and educated man, was able to fill out Storch’s theme. While popular with the masses, such preaching caused the leading townspeople to clamp down on the church, ending with a revolt of the plebeian weavers and others, and Müntzer and Storch’s ejection from the city in 1521. While Storch, Stübner, and Dreschel went to Wittenberg, Müntzer went on to nearby Prague until 296 Peasants’ War he was also expelled from the city. After two years of wandering and preaching, he ended up in Allstedt and there became a popular preacher amongst the peasants and others. Müntzer’s preaching began to alarm those in authority. In July 1524, Duke John, a prince of Saxony, traveled to Allstedt and ordered Müntzer to preach a sermon. Müntzer, eager to have the opportunity to persuade a prince, thundered against the evil and ungodly, saying, “So don’t let them live any longer the evildoers who turn us away from God. For a godless man has no right to live if he hinders the godly.” When Luther heard of this, he wrote an attack against Müntzer addressed to the princes. Müntzer responded with two tracts addressed to the people, the latter of which was called The most amply called-for defense answer to the unspiritual soft-living flesh at Wittenberg. This was a clear call to social revolution and prepared the way for what was to come. The patient Duke John summoned Müntzer to Weimar, telling him to cease his preaching and not leave Allstedt. Müntzer’s response was to leave Allstedt, eventually ending up in the nearby city of Mühlhausen. In Mühlhausen, a man named Heinrich Pfeiffer had been agitating the poorer citizens to take control of the city. Joined by Müntzer and eventually Storch, the agitation increased to a fever pitch. In March 1525, Müntzer began proclaiming that the new league of peasants should march out to war against the godless. In response, bands of peasants began sacking convents and monasteries, but there was no organized effort until May 1525, when the peasants had organized themselves into an army of approximately 8,000. By that time, at the request of Duke John, a nearby prince, Philip of Hesse, had arrived with a small army to deal with the problems in Thuringia. Müntzer marched out to aid the peasants with a band of 300 men and on May 15, the army of Philip of Hesse attacked and quickly routed the peasant army, eventually killing nearly 5,000 of the peasants. For his part in it, Müntzer was tortured and beheaded along with Pfeiffer (Storch escaped but was soon captured and killed). This was not the end of the Peasants’ War. There were no other battles so significant, but it is estimated that some 100,000 peasants and plebeians were killed in the next several years as the various revolts were put down by the princes. The religious overtones were significant in the Peasants’ War. They were not the principal cause, but rather the match that ignited the fires of the war. The peasants and plebeians were caught in a time of significant transition. As noted earlier, the peasant class was actually rising in economic stature but was still living in significant poverty in comparison to the middle and upper classes of Germany. The Reformation gave a broader vision for the equality of the people before God, but it was only the more radical elements that proclaimed a classless society. Luther, himself an advocate of the common people, still perceived the various occupations as God-given and did not advocate a classless society. In the final analysis, the Peasants’ War was one of many such struggles that are endemic to a society in transition. There is a certain irony that the princes who were most moderate toward their people ended up having to put down more ruthlessly the uprising, but the very moderate stance they took encouraged the hope of those promoting revolution. Further reading: Bak, Janos M., ed. The German Peasant War of 1525. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 1976; Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millenium. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970; Engels, Friedrich. Peasant War in Germany. New York: International Publishers Company, 2000; Miller, Douglas. Armies of the German Peasants’ War 1524–26. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, Ltd., 2003; Scott, Tom, and Bob Scribner, trans. eds. German Peasants’ War: A History in Documents. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 1993; Stayer, James. The German Peasants’ War and the Anabaptist Community of Goods. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1991. Bruce D. Franson Penn, William (1644–1718) colonial leader William Penn, a Quaker, founded the English colony of Pennsylvania in 1681. He envisioned his colony as a “holy experiment” where people of different faiths could live in harmony. Born in England, William Penn grew up in wealth and privilege. His father, Admiral William Penn, afforded him a university education, several large estates, and important connections to England’s elite. In 1667, Penn became a member of the Society of Friends, a religion founded 20 years earlier by George Fox. The Friends, called Quakers by their detractors, abandoned formal religious services and sought the “Inner Light” by which God revealed himself to each individual. The Quakers suffered persecution in England, but after his conversion, Penn began to use Penn, William 29 7 his wealth and influence to advocate the tolerance of all Protestants in England. In 1676, Penn looked to America to put his ideas of religious liberty into action when he and several other Quakers became trustees of West New Jersey. However, problems with the charter and the large number of trustees thwarted Penn’s hopes to create a religious refuge. Accordingly, Penn petitioned King Charles II for a land grant of his own. To cancel the debt of £16,000 that he owed to Penn’s father, the king granted Penn 45,000 square miles of land west of the Delaware River, to be named Pennsylvania (Penn’s Woods). According to the 1681 charter, Penn was made sole proprietor, meaning he could organize Pennsylvania as he wanted so long as it did not violate English law. Penn dispatched the first settlers in October 1681. This party asserted Penn’s authority over the European colonists and Lenni Lenape (Delaware) Indians already living in the region. They also established the colony’s capital of Philadelphia. Penn arrived in late 1682. From the start, Penn encouraged a variety of Protestants and Europeans to settle in the colony. At his behest, the nascent Pennsylvania legislature in December 1682 issued a law granting full rights of citizenship to all freemen who declared “Jesus Christ to be the son of God” and “saviour of the world.” Penn also insisted that his colony have no tax-supported religious establishment, not even for Quakers. This and the economic opportunities available in Pennsylvania caused the population to reach 11,000 in 1690. Despite Penn’s success at religious toleration, his tenure as proprietor was unsteady. He returned to England in 1684, leaving behind incapable governors, and in 1693, a schism led by George Keith divided the colony’s Quakers. The Crown suspended his charter from 1692 to 1695 “by reason of the great neglects and miscarriages” caused by Penn’s absence. Penn returned in 1699 but found his colonists contentious and uninterested in paying him quitrents on their lands. Frustrated, Penn left two years later but not before issuing the Charter of Privileges, which granted the colonists considerable latitude in crafting their own laws. The unprofitability of Pennsylvania and Penn’s penchant for extravagance landed him in debtor’s prison in 1707. In 1712, he suffered a debilitating stroke, leaving his wife, Hannah Callowhill, to manage the colony in his stead. After Penn’s death in 1718, the proprietorship passed to his sons. See also dissenters in England. Further reading: Dunn, Mary Maples. William Penn, Politics and Conscience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967; Schwartz, Sally. “A Mixed Multitude”: The Struggle for Toleration in Colonial Pennsylvania. New York: New York University Press, 1988. John G. McCurdy Pernambuco (Recife, Brazil) Pernambuco is a state in the northeastern part of Brazil and is the closest South American land to Europe. This area of about 38,585 square miles with a population close to 8 million in the late 20th century was the first area of South America occupied by the Portuguese. Its geography consists of a coastal plain and a dry semiarid plateau. Pernambuco was originally a captaincy or province. For centuries, Brazil’s main exports were the sugar and cotton of this province, making the area important in Brazilian politics. The name Pernambuco derives from a tree valued for its lumber, brazilwood, and the red dye it produces. The Native Americans of the area prized the red dye and made their weapons from the tree. The Brazil tree is now endangered, although its wood is still used to make violin bows. The first European settlers from Portugal called the area Nova Lusitania, meaning “New Portugal,” and a capital was established called Olinda. It was a prosperous area, despite a high incidence of malaria. The production of sugar and cotton required large numbers of slaves from Portuguese colonies in Africa to supplement the Native American laborers. The prosperity of Recife caused English adventurers to capture and plunder it in 1595. Throughout the history of the area, landowners have formed an oligarchy that has maintained its own armies and strictly controlled the lives of those who work their lands. Education of the people was never a priority and transportation developed for the convenience of the landowners, not the people at large. Resentment of this toward the Portuguese-born officials grew in this area among the wealthy. In 1630, the forces of the Dutch West India Company captured Pernambuco and other Portuguese colonies. They moved the capital to Recife on the coast of Pernambuco at the mouth of two rivers. This low-lying area reminded the Dutch of their homeland. Canals and bridges were built and Recife became known as the Venice of South America. By 1640, Pernambuco sent 24,000 tons of sugar to Amsterdam. The Dutch prince Maurice of Nassau traveled to the area to govern it. Under the Dutch regime many mercantile buildings and homes were build in Recife in the Dutch style. 298 Pernambuco During the period of Dutch control, the first synagogue in the Americas was built in Recife, Pernambuco. At one time during this period, the Jewish population in Recife was larger than the Jewish community in Amsterdam, Holland. The Jewish presence in Pernambuco disappeared when the Spanish Inquisition of the Catholic Church came to the area with the return of Portuguese power. Many Jews from Recife fled to New York City, then New Amsterdam. Others fled to the interior of Brazil, where they practiced their religion in secret. In 2000, the Jewish population of Recife sponsored an excavation to uncover the remains of the first synagogue built in the Americas in Recife. The Dutch remained in power only until 1649. The Dutch forces were ousted not by the armies of the Portuguese monarchy, but by the local peoples themselves. The Mascate War took place in 1710 between the business class of Recife and the wealthy owners of the sugar mills around Olinda. Later Pernambuco was the location of a revolution, which briefly set up a Republic of Pernambuco in the 19th century. Though the republic lasted only two months, the flag of the republic remains the state’s flag. See also Dutch East India Company; sugarcane plantations in the Americas. Further reading: Fausto, Boris. A Concise History of Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Meade, Teresa A. A Brief History of Brazil. New York: Facts On File, 2003; Rohter, Larry. “Recife Journal; a Brazilian City Resurrects Its Buried Jewish Past.” Available online. New York Times on the Web URL: 051900brazil-synagogue.html (cited November 17, 2005). Nancy Pippen Eckerman Peru, conquest of Following on the heels of the Spanish conquest of the Caribbean, conquest of Mexico, and conquest of Central America, the conquest of Peru was a long, complex, and bloody process marked by recurrent civil wars among factions of Spaniards and fierce Native resistance against Spanish efforts to subjugate them. The conquest’s beginnings in 1532 with the first Spanish incursions into the Andean highlands are easier to mark than its ending, which is conventionally dated to 1572 with the destruction of the remnant Inca state of Vilcabamba and the execution of the last Inca, Tupac Amaru. Some scholars maintain that the conquest was never fully completed, as Peru’s indigenous peoples resisted Spanish domination throughout the colonial period, sometimes in armed rebellion, more often in less violent and more subtle ways, including the retention of many cultural and religious beliefs and practices. Few would disagree that the conquest of Peru represents one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of the Americas. In the early 1520s, with the conquest of Central America well under way and a launching-off point at Panama City on the Pacific side of the isthmus, the Spanish were poised to turn their attention to the Pacific coast of South America. The first exploratory expedition was in 1522 under Pascual de Andagoya, who sailed 200 miles south along the Colombian coast in search of a people called the Viru or Biru, a name later corrupted to Perú. Further expeditions followed. In November 1524, Francisco Pizarro, Diego de Almagro, and the priest Hernando de Luque sailed as far south as the Port of Hunger along the Colombian coast before turning back. A second Pizarro-Almagro expedition sailed two years later and discovered tantalizing hints of an advanced civilization in the interior. Pizarro returned to Spain to seek royal authority for an expedition of conquest. His arrival coincided with Hernán Cortés’s return from his dazzling successes in Mexico, which whetted the appetite of the Crown and drew many adventurers to Pizarro’s side. On July 26, 1529, the queen granted Pizarro the authority he had sought, along with the title governor and captain-general of Peru. Almagro was named commandant of Tumbez, a lesser title that sowed the seeds of future conflict between the two men. Pizarro and Almagro returned to Panama and launched their third expedition on December 27, 1530. After a slow and cautious beginning, on November 8, 1532, Pizarro began his march into the Andean mountains. By this time, much of the Andean population had been ravaged by virulent European diseases, especially smallpox, that had spread overland from Central America and northern South America years before the Spanish set foot in the Andes. By weakening the Inca Empire, these diseases proved to be one of the Spaniards’ most important allies. Pizarro’s turn into the mountains could not have been more propitiously timed. The recent death of the Inca Huayna-Capac from an unknown disease had created crisis of dynastic succession and civil war among the Inca, leading his sons Huascar and Atahualpa to contend for supremacy. Huscar headed the Cuzco faction of the Inca royal family; Atahualpa, the Quito faction. By stunning good fortune, Atahualpa’s 7,000-strong army was camped in the mountain valley of Cajamarca, near Pizarro’s line of march. Pizarro and his 150 men boldly marched straight into the valley. After some initial Peru, conquest of 299 friendly interactions with the Inca, Pizarro launched a surprise attack on November 16, 1532, and slaughtered the Inca’s entire force. As was the case throughout the Peruvian campaign, Inca weaponry proved no match for Spanish steel, armor, and horses. The arquebus, the most sophisticated firearm in the Spanish arsenal, played little role in the conquest. Swords, pikes, and horses proved their most valuable weapons. Time after time, small numbers of Spaniards proved able to defeat vastly larger native armies. With the Inca Atahualpa now his prisoner, Pizarro demanded a huge ransom of gold and precious objects for his release. Over the next eight months, trains of native porters carted massive amounts of treasure into Cajamarca. Meanwhile, convinced that the Spaniards represented no threat to the empire, Atahualpa arranged for the murder of his brother Huascar, thus eliminating his brother’s claim to the Inca throne. Pizarro had no intention of honoring his part of the bargain. On July 26, 1533, after a month of melting down and distributing the loot among his men, he executed Atahualpa. One of the signal events of the conquest, Atahualpa’s execution remained a key moment in divergent Spanish interpretations regarding the morality of the conquistadores’ actions. Almagro’s force of 150 men arrived soon after the division of spoils, of which they received a small share. The unequal distribution of loot generated lasting animosities between the Almagro and Pizarro factions. By this time, Pizarro’s scouts had probed the vulnerabilities of the Inca capital in Cuzco. Recognizing the need for a puppet Inca to invest political legitimacy into the Spaniards’ anticipated domination of Peru, Pizarro arranged the crowning of Huascar’s younger brother, Tupac Huallpa, as Inca. It was a pattern repeated numerous times in the coming years. Meanwhile, Francisco Pizarro’s brother Hernando returned to Spain with the Crown’s requisite “royal fifth” of the treasure. News of the events spread quickly throughout Spain and Europe. Recruiting drives for additional soldiers saw great success, while also planting the seeds of future conflict between Spaniards who had profited from the initial successes and fresh arrivals whose hunger for treasure would go unfulfilled. Back in Peru in August 1533, Francisco Pizarro, Almagro, and their men began their march toward Cuzco, 750 miles south along the Inca road. En route, in October, the puppet Inca Tupac Huallpa died. After numerous battles in which the vastly outnumbered Spanish roundly defeated their Inca attackers, Pizarro’s force of several hundred men entered Cuzco on November 15, 1533. Two days earlier the same day that Pizarro burned alive the leading Inca general Chalcuchima, a second puppet Inca presented himself—Manco Inca, son of Huayna- Capac. In Cuzco on November 16, 1533, one year after executing Atahualpa, Pizarro appointed Manco Inca as Inca. In December, he was officially crowned. Presenting themselves as liberators, backers of the Cuzco faction in the civil war, the Spaniards quickly took over the city’s most important buildings and palaces. From this point, divisions among and between Spaniards combined with a series of mass Indian uprisings against the invaders. Almagro, still stinging from the paltry share of treasure received in Cajamarca, was sent south into Chile in search of further riches. Pedro de Alvarado, fresh from his successes in Mexico and Central America, arrived in Ecuador in February 1534 and headed toward Quito. Hoping to head off Alvarado’s unauthorized invasion, Pizarro’s captain Sebastián de Benalcázar marched on Quito, took the city, and defeated the remaining Inca armies in the north. With looted treasure he bought off Alvarado, who returned to Guatemala, though many of his men remained. Soon after, in January 1535, Francisco Pizarro founded a new capital city on the coast, Ciudad de los Reyes, later known as Lima, a corruption of its indigenous name. Meanwhile, disillusioned by the invaders’ avarice and violence, Manco Inca escaped from Cuzco and in early 1536 led a mass uprising against the Spanish, laying siege to Cuzco with some 100,000 troops. The siege faltered as the rainy season began and his army began drifting away. Manco Inca retreated into the jungle fastnesses of Vilcacamba, where a rump Inca state resisted Spanish incursions until its final destruction in 1572. Soon after Manco Inca lifted the siege of Cuzco in early 1537, Almagro’s expedition returned from Chile, exhausted and empty-handed. Open civil war soon erupted between the Almagro and Pizarro factions. Almagro was defeated in the Battle of Las Salinas near Cuzco in 1538, after which Hernándo Pizarro executed him, but the war raged on under Almagro’s son, also named Diego de Almagro. In 1541, the Almagrists killed Francisco Pizarro, while a year later Pizarro loyalists under the king’s newly appointed governor Cristóbal Vaca de Castro defeated and killed Almagro the younger. That same year of 1542 the Crown issued its New Laws, designed to limit the abuses of the encomienda system and prevent the encomenderos from becoming an independent aristocracy beyond royal control. Bridling against these new restrictions on their authority, many encomenderos gravitated toward Gonzalo Pizarro, who violently opposed the New Laws. After killing 300 Peru, conquest of the king’s viceroy Blasco Núñez de la Vela in 1546, Gonzalo Pizarro effectively ruled Peru until royalist forces captured, tried, and executed him in 1549. The new viceroy, Pedro de la Gasca, effectively staunched further major challenges to royal authority. Meanwhile, enormous deposits of silver were discovered in Potosí in 1545, which soon became one of colonial Peru’s main economic pillars. By this time, most Indians had acceded to Spanish authority, though numerous pockets of resistance endured through the 1550s and 1560s, most notably the rump state of Vilcabamba. In 1572, the new viceroy Francisco de Toledo finally found and crushed Vilcabamba. On September 24 of that year, in the central square of Cuzco, Toledo oversaw the execution of the last Inca, Tupac Amaru. His execution effectively ended this first phase of organized armed resistance against Spanish domination, though more covert forms of resistance continued for nearly 300 years, while a new round of rebellions, inspired by the first and led by Tupac Amaru II, erupted in the 1780s. It is not known how many Indians died during the 40 years between the executions of the Incas Atahualpa and Tupac Amaru, though the most conservative estimates range from 3 to 5 million, from a preconquest population of around 7 to 9 million. As elsewhere, the combination of warfare, atrocity, forced labor, enslavement, and disease caused a precipitous demographic decline, from which populations did not begin to recover until well into the 18th century. As the conquests of the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America that preceded it, the conquest of Peru represents one of the most horrifically violent and destructive episodes in the history of the world. See also epidemics in the Americas; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970; Stern, Steve J. Peru’s Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: Huamanga to 1640. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982; Wachtel, Nathan. The Vision of the Peru, conquest of 301 An aerial view of the Incan city Machu Picchu, high above the mountains in Peru. Machu Picchu was constructed around 1450, at the height of the Inca Empire, and was abandoned less than 100 years later as the empire collapsed under Spanish conquest. Vanquished: The Spanish Conquest of Peru through Indian Eyes, 1530–1570. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1977; Yupanqui, Titu Cusi. An Inca Account of the Conquest of Peru. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2005. Michael J. Schroeder Peru, Viceroyalty of The largest and second most important political jurisdiction in Spain’s American empire after the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the Viceroyalty of Peru came into being in 1542 during the civil wars that wracked the Andes during the conquest of Peru. Originally comprising all of South America west of the demarcation line established in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, the viceroyalty extended from Panama in the north to Patagonia in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean eastward to a longitudinal meridian at roughly 44 degrees west, excluding parts of northern South America (contemporary Venezuela), which were under the jurisdiction of New Spain. In the late colonial period the Crown carved two new viceroyalties out of the Viceroyalty of Peru: New Granada (1739) and Río de la Plata (1777). Following the civil wars of the period of conquest, and the major reforms of Viceroy Francisco de Toledo in the 1570s, Peru emerged as a major source of silver bullion, especially from the “mountain of silver” at Potosí. As elsewhere in the Americas, Spain imposed across the Peruvian Andes a rigid castelike race-class hierarchy in which subordinate Indians, toiling under a modified version of the preconquest mita labor system, provided labor and tribute to Spanish civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and to native kurakas, or community chieftains, who occupied an ambiguous middle ground between the Spanish elite and the masses of Indian laborers. The violence of conquest and its aftermath prompted a millenarian nativist backlash in the 1560s: the Taki Onqoy movement. Aiming to expel the despised invaders and reestablish a pan-Andean indigenous state, this popular rebellion reproduced many of the divisions and fractures of preconquest indigenous society and was crushed by the 1570s. Popular memories of Taki Onqoy endured throughout the colonial period, however, reerupting in a different form in the major Andean rebellions of the 1780s. As elsewhere in the Americas, demographic declines in colonial Peru were very steep, though on the whole of a lesser magnitude than those in New Spain (though, as elsewhere, the numbers will never be known with any degree of precision). From an estimated population of 9 million in 1520 for the Andes as a whole, the number of surviving Indians is estimated to have dropped to 1.3 million by 1570, and 600,000 by 1630. Following a major series of epidemics in 1718–20, the population hovered at around this number to the mid- 1700s, climbing gradually thereafter. In a characteristic pattern, highland dwellers on the whole experienced a lesser population decline than inhabitants of the more disease-prone lowland valleys of the Pacific Coast. Despite the ravages of warfare, forced labor, forced conversion, disease, and the violence of colonial rule, Peru’s indigenous peoples and communities displayed a remarkable resilience, retaining many features of their preconquest cultures and lifestyles. Despite prodigious efforts, Spanish authorities were never able to extirpate the religious beliefs and practices of Peru’s Indian peoples, while Quechua, Aymara, and related tongues remained the dominant languages among the vast majority. Centuries-old traditions of planting, harvesting, cooking, eating, herding, weaving, and, in general, conceiving of and acting in the world endured through nearly three centuries of Spanish colonial rule and after, as remains plainly apparent to the present day. The English-language historiography on colonial Peru, like that for colonial Mexico, is exceptionally rich. See also mita labor in the Andean highlands; Potosí (silver mines of colonial Peru); silver in the Americas. Further reading: Bauer, Brian S, and Vania Smith, eds. History of the Incas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007; Sarmiento De Gamboa, Pedro, and Williamson, Edwin. The Penguin History of Latin America. London: Penguin, 1992; Stern, Steve J. Peru’s Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: Huamanga to 1640. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Michael J. Schroeder Peter I the Great (1672–1725) czar of Russia The rise to power of Peter the Great was fraught with death and uncertainty, but his reign as czar greatly strengthened Russia in regard to its acquisition of territory in the Baltic and Black Sea regions, and the modernization of Russian society. Czar Alexei (1645–76) and his 302 Peru, Viceroyalty of wife, Natalia Naryshkin, did not believe their son Peter would drastically change the course of Russian history when he was born on May 30, 1672. The death of Czar Feodor III (1676–82) created a problem for the continuation of the Romanov dynasty in Russia since Fedor left no heirs; the debate developed concerning Ivan or Peter as successor. Ivan was Fedor’s brother, but Ivan, who was 16 years old, was mentally and physically handicapped. Peter was the half brother of Ivan and had the support of many of the boyars and the patriarch Joachim, since this healthy 10-year-old offered stability to the Russian throne. The Zemsky Sobor, an assembly of boyars, was assembled and voiced its support for Peter, but Sophia, Feodor’s sister, refused to allow Peter to be crowned as czar and attempted to incite the Streltsi, a regiment of guardsmen, to turn against Peter. On May 15, 1682, the Streltsi, upon hearing rumors that Ivan and a number of boyars were murdered, rebelled and stormed the Kremlin. The Streltsi swore their loyalty to the Romanov family after Ivan Naryshkin and Doctor Van Gaden were brutally murdered. These two individuals were killed because the Streltsi believed they played a role in the presumed death of Ivan. Following these murders, the Streltsi decided that Ivan and Peter would corule Russia, with Ivan acting as the senior czar and Sophia as the regent over both czars. The double coronation ceremony was held on May 26, 1682. Sophia’s control over the Russian government quickly deteriorated with mounting tension between Sophia and Peter as Peter tried to assert his authority over her. In August 1689, Sophia called up some of the palace guards to protect her from a suspected attack from supporters of Peter. This intensified the situation, because a number of people loyal to Peter believed that these guards were called up to attack him. Peter fled for refuge to the Monastery of the Holy Trinity, where he rallied a sizable force. Sophia, fearful of Peter’s increasing strength and of her declining support, capitulated. Peter’s mother, Natalia, was selected to replace Sophia as the regent of the czars, but her regency was short, as she died in 1694. Ivan died shortly later in 1695, leaving Peter as the czar of Russia, and in a position to pursue his own policies. Military might Peter’s first interests were against the Crimean Turks, as Peter was anxious to acquire access to the Black Sea so that Russia could trade with Europe throughout the whole year. The battle against the Turks at Azov in 1695 was a failure despite the fact that Peter assembled an army of approximately 31,000 men to attack Azov, and another 120,000 men to fight near the Dnieper River. The reason for the failure was that the Turks could still ship supplies to Azov via water transport. Peter decided to correct this oversight in his strategy and collected money from monasteries and boyars to build a Russian naval fleet. The second attempt to take Azov in June 1696 with an army of 80,000 soldiers and a fleet was successful. With the campaign against the Turks a success, Peter decided to focus his attention toward the West. In 1697, Peter and an entourage of 250 Russians toured Europe to examine Western knowledge and technology. Peter was impressed with the wealth Holland was able to acquire through its trading access and commercial fleet. This wealth left such an impression on Peter that he was determined to emulate this success by constructing his own commercial fleet. He wanted to give Russia a window to the West via trade and to acquire more European technology to strengthen Russia. Peter also wanted to import Peter I the Great 303 Peter the Great of Russia greatly strengthened Russia with acquisition of territory in the Baltic and Black Sea regions. Western culture to Russia; he forced the nobles to shave their beards, changed the Russian calendar to conform to the European calendar, and made the Russian New Year conform to the European New Year. In fact, the historian Paul Bushkovitch has credited Peter with introducing modern culture and political thought to Russia. Peter was also able to create a stronger state by making the Eastern Orthodox Church subservient to the Russian government. The money Peter seized from monasteries and the reformed tax system helped Peter to build an academy to improve the education system in Russia. Peter was also able to bring order to the Russian social hierarchy by formulating the Table of Ranks in 1722, which determined an individual’s status in Russian society. Moving WEst Instead of pursuing Russian expansion to the south against the Turks, as previous Russian foreign policy dictated, Peter moved west, initiating hostilities against Sweden. The Great Northern War against Sweden dominated much of Peter’s reign. In order to defeat the Swedish, Peter built a large army based on the same model as his Preobrazhenskii regiment, which had Westernstyle uniforms, training, and promotion through the ranks based on merit instead of birth. Poland sent a declaration of war to the Swedish government in January 1700, and Denmark quickly followed suit. These two countries gave Peter allies in a war against Sweden, initiated when the Russian government declared war against the Swedish government on August 20, 1700. Unfortunately for Peter, the Danes sued for peace on August 20, 1700, leaving Russia and Poland to fight against the Swedish empire without this valuable ally. As this alliance between Poland and Russia developed, Charles XII of Sweden reviewed his plans to protect his empire. Unfortunately, he was not able to recognize the major threat to his country’s boundaries. The Swedish strategy during the Great Northern War consisted of concentrating the main bulk of their forces against the Polish armies while Charles relied upon a token force to limit the Russian advance in the east. It is true that the Swedes quickly attacked and defeated a Russian force at Narva on November 30, 1700. At this battle, a small Swedish force of 10,000 soldiers was able to overwhelm a Russian force of 40,000 men and seize the battlefield. Despite this victory, the Swedes did not follow up their attack with further pressure against the Russians. The Swedish strategists preferred to concentrate their war effort against the Poles. It took the Swedes eight years to launch their second invasion into Russian territory. Following his victory at Narva, Charles maintained a Swedish force of 15,000 men to protect his Baltic possessions. This force proved to be inadequate in the defense of the eastern portion of his empire against the armies of Peter. In January of 1702, Peter gained some momentum with his victory over the Swedes at Errestfer. This battle had major consequences for the Swedish war effort since its army lost 3,350 soldiers. This Swedish defeat was compounded by another Swedish rout half a year later. This defeat cost the Swedish army a significant number of soldiers and provided the stimulus Peter needed in order to expand into the Baltic area. Peter was able to strengthen Kronstadt after the capture of the fortresses of Nyenskans and Nöteborg. Peter was determined to hold on to his acquisitions in the Baltic region and give Russia closer ties with the rest of Europe by founding St. Petersburg in 1703, which became the future capital of Russia. It is important to note that the Russian armies acquired more than territorial gains from this Baltic campaign. Through these military victories, the Russians were able to acquire more experience and confidence, as well as increase the size of their army. When Charles XII finally turned his attention toward the Russian front, Peter had already established himself on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. The eight-year gap between the two Swedish invasions of Russian territory provided Peter with a reprieve in which he could strengthen his armies. The number of cavalry regiments increased from two in 1700 to 34 regiments at the time of Charles’s return. As Charles advanced through the Ukraine, Peter was obliged to follow a scorched earth policy in order to stall for time and demoralize the invading Swedes. Vicious methods were employed to deprive the Swedes of anything of use as the town of Dorpat was destroyed after the inhabitants were forcibly moved eastward and Russians were forbidden to provide Swedish troops with provisions. swedish defeat On May 11, 1709, the Swedish army unknowingly began a siege that would lead to the capitulation of the Swedish government 12 years later. The Poltava battle accurately foreshadowed the decline of Swedish power in the affairs of the Baltic as this battle cost the Swedish army 9,700 soldiers. This is a significant number of men compared to the 4,545 casualties the Russian army endured. The consequences of this battle were further devastating to the Swedes. On July 1, 1709, fully 20,000 Swedes surrendered to the Russian armies at the town of Perovolochina. The Russians were 304 Peter I the Great unable to capture their royal opponent as Charles XII, who abandoned a significant portion of his army, fled south to the Ottoman Empire. Poltava is recognized by scholars as a battle that not only changed the course of the Northern War, but completely altered the balance of power in northeastern Europe. It must be noted the governments of Western Europe were anticipating not only the destruction of the Russian army, but the further expansion of Swedish influence into eastern Europe. The consequences of the Battle of Poltava ended any hope of imposing Swedish influence on the Russians. Not only did the Swedes lose a substantial portion of their army, but the old alliance against them was strengthened. In this respect, Peter shifted from a passive role during the first alliance into a more active role. Peter, who encountered Augustus on the Vistula River, agreed to help his former comrade reclaim his throne since he was deposed following the Swedish victory over the Poles at Kliszow in 1702. Peter attempted to make the Polish throne more secure to the family of Augustus by making the Polish monarchy a hereditary position. This illustrates the massive degree of power Peter now possessed in the internal affairs of the Polish government. The Danes, already allied to Augustus, wished to restore the old balance of power in northern Europe. invasion of finland Peter was able to use his gains in the Baltic to their fullest potential as he launched an invasion of Finland in order to strengthen his position at the upcoming peace negotiations with the Swedish government. The Russians won a remarkable victory against the Swedish at Storkyro in March 1714. This land victory was followed by a Russian naval triumph over the Swedish navy at Gangut. In 1718, the Swedish government faced another threatening situation: Charles XII died during a battle in Norway. Ulrika, Charles’s sister, faced increasing pressure resulting from Peter’s invasions of the Swedish heartland. The Russians were also enlarging the size of their Baltic fleet at an alarming pace. These threats compelled the Swedish government to end the war against the Russians. The Russians were able to gain a significant degree of power in the Baltic region from the Treaty of Nystadt. The agreement between these two powers allowed the Russians to take possession of several islands, the territories of Livonia, Estonia, Ingermanland, and a section of Karelia. The Russians were given significant influence in Baltic affairs since they kept the fortress of Viborg. More important, the Russian czar was regarded as an imperial monarch by the Prussians and the Dutch. Even the Swedes and other western Europeans eventually acknowledged this title. Peter’s death on January 28, 1725, brought uncertainty to the succession of a new ruler for two reasons. Peter did not have a male heir to succeed him, and he failed to nominate his successor before he died. Peter’s only son and heir to the throne, Alexei, died on June 26, 1718, as a result of the torture inflicted on him for his rebellious attitudes. Alexei was an outspoken critic of Peter’s reforms and feared the wrath of his father, resulting in his flight to Austria in 1716. Despite the fact that he was plotting against his father, Alexei was eventually persuaded to return to Russia and was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he later died. His wife, Catherine, was nominated to succeed Peter since she had the support of a number of Peter’s advisers and the Imperial Guard. See also Dutch East India Company. Further reading: Anderson, M. S. Peter the Great: Profiles in Power. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 1995; Bushkovitch, Paul. Peter the Great. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001; Duffy, James, and Vincent Ricci. Czars: Russia’s Rulers for Over One Thousand Years. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995; LeDonne, John. The Russian Empire and the World, 1700–1721: The Geopolitics of Expansion and Containment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997; Massie, Robert. Peter the Great: His Life and World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1980; Riasanovsky, Nicholas. A History of Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977; Sumner, B. H. “Peter’s Imperial Legacy,” in Peter the Great Transforms Russia, Cracraft, James, ed. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1991; Warner, Oliver. The Sea and the Sword: The Baltic, 1630–1945. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1965. Brian de Ruiter Philip II (1527–1598) Spanish monarch Despite the fact that Philip II was the ruler of the Spanish Empire when its influence in the world was at its peak, his record as a monarch was not entirely successful. The birth of Philip on May 21, 1527, in the city of Valladolid was a welcome joy to his parents, Charles V and Isabella of Portugal. His parents had a significant impact on his upbringing as his father taught him at an early age how to govern the realm, while his mother’s piety played Philip II 305 a large part in Philip’s life. Although Philip was a very devout individual, his interest in the occult was evident in his collection of hundreds of books on this subject. In the 16th century, Spain was one of the most powerful countries in Europe. Charles V ruled over a sizable empire as he controlled Spain, Sardinia, Naples, Sicily, the Netherlands, land in central Europe, and colonies situated in the Caribbean and South and North America. Control of this large territory was difficult to manage, and when Charles V stepped down as the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 1558, he chose two people to rule the Habsburg lands—his brother Ferdinand and his son Philip. Philip received the largest bulk of the empire, as he acquired Spain, the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean and North and South America, Sardinia, Naples, and the Netherlands, in comparison to Ferdinand, who acquired Habsburg territories in central Europe. Philip acquired the kingdom of Portugal and its colonies following the death of the Portuguese King Manuel I in 1580 because Manuel failed to produce a male heir. Philip inherited this kingdom because his mother was one of Manuel’s daughters. Philip spent much of his life trying to attain unity and protect his empire rather than extend his absolute rule over the areas he controlled. The empire was too large for Philip to attain absolute rule as is evidenced by the fact that his control of the empire was ineffective outside Madrid. Despite the division of Habsburg possessions in Europe, Philip was still left with a significant area of territory to govern and had the potential to add further territories to Habsburg possessions. Philip married Mary I of England in 1554; the marriage could have brought England into the possession of the Habsburg family but failed to produce a child. The accession of Elizabeth I to the throne of England in 1558 changed the dynamics of Spanish-English relations. Elizabeth was a Protestant, who supported the Dutch in their fight for independence against the Spanish and endorsed English piracy against Spanish ships. Philip sent a powerful naval armada to remove the “heretic” Elizabeth from power, but English ships were able to destroy a number of ships, while dangerous weather forced a number of others to crash into rocks off the coast of Scotland and Ireland. This defeat was a massive blow for the Spanish fleet as at least 70 of the 130 ships that participated in the invasion were destroyed. This massive blow to the Spanish navy forced Philip to give up his plans of removing Elizabeth from power. Philip spent a great deal of time trying to secure Habsburg possessions in Italy against the encroachments of France by signing the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559. After securing Italy, Philip was able to concentrate more on the threat that the Ottoman Empire posed to the western Mediterranean and to southern Spain. From 1559 to 1577, the Spanish navy was engaged in frequent fighting against the Ottoman navy. The southern coast of Spain was vulnerable against Ottoman naval incursions as a result of the weakness of the Spanish navy in that region and a rebellion initiated by the Moriscos, who were Christian Moors, over taxation. The naval war between the two empires climaxed in 1571 at the Battle of Lepanto, where the Spanish navy decisively defeated the Ottomans, ending the Ottoman threat to southern Spain. religion and politics It is difficult to assess the degree in which religion played a role in Philip’s foreign policy, and historians have been debating this question for years. Religion was a major focus in the life of Philip II as is evidenced by the fact that he undertook many administrative reforms in the church in Spain by creating an archdiocese at Burgos, creating seven dioceses, and cutting off over 300 monastic houses in Spain from their religious orders in Europe, giving the Spanish government more influence in their affairs. Philip attempted to create a fair political and judicial administration in order to win the hearts of his loyal subjects and the fear of criminals. He intervened in the judicial and government systems as little as possible, and only when he believed that injustices were committed against his people. Philip even put class distinctions aside as he punished the aristocracy when he believed they violated the law. This is not to suggest that Philip II was without prejudices; he attempted, after all, to expel the Jewish population from Lombardy. Philip endured many tragic events in his personal life, including the death of his wives, Maria of Portugal, Mary I, Elizabeth of Valois, and Anne of Austria. Philip was also forced to live with the death of his son Don Carlos. The relationship between Philip and Don Carlos was characterized by incessant friction, and it is possible that Don Carlos supported Dutch leaders who were becoming dissatisfied with Spanish rule. Philip imprisoned his son in 1568, and he died six months later, possibly on the orders of Philip. Philip was not always eager to marry, but diplomatic ties and the need for an heir to the throne prompted the king to take four wives. This need for a male heir became acute following Don Carlos’s death. The problem concerning a male heir was solved as Anne gave birth to a boy, Philip III, on April 14, 1578, who became the king of Spain following his father’s death in 1598. 306 Philip II Philip was not a popular monarch among his people. He preferred to spend most of his day alone and avoided the public as much as possible. Despite the fact that Philip ruled over a large empire, his military was too weak to defend much of it, and his administration too ineffective to rule it. Historians have critiqued the rule of Philip II, with varying conclusions. Some point to his securing of the western Mediterranean from Turkish incursions and unification of Portugal and Spain as major achievements while others look to his foreign and domestic policies to show that Spain was weak at the time of his death. Epidemics and famine led to a decline in population while declining trade and a weakening industrial and agricultural base crippled the empire as the Castilian peasants were forced to pay over a third of their income in taxes to the government. See also Elizabeth I; Habsburg dynasty; Spanish Armada; Valois dynasty. Further reading: Lovett, A. W. Early Habsburg Spain, 1517– 1598. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986; Merriman, John. A History of Modern Europe, Volume 1: From the Renaissance to the Age of Napoleon. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996; Parker, Geoffrey. The Grand Strategy of Philip II. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998; Smith, Lacey Baldwin. This Realm of England: 1399 to 1688. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath,1996; Woodward, Geoffrey. Philip II. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 1992. Brian de Ruiter Philippines, Spanish colonization of the The Philippines is an archipelago of more than 7,000 islands in Southeast Asia. It contains a great deal of diversity in ethnicity and social organization. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, there were very few credible accounts of life on the archipelago and, consequently, what is known about precolonial Philippines depends on postcolonization sources. Prior to Spanish rule, the Philippines consisted of small-scale communities with little connection to any larger state. Junks had been traveling to the islands from China for centuries and some islands and ports had roles in the international spice trade. The southern islands of the Philippines had become partly Islamized since the 15th century from Brunei to Mindanao and the Sulu islands. Both Spain and Portugal had become active in the Southeast Asian region by the late 15th century, attracted by the valuable spice trade, access to the markets of China, and the possibility of converting souls to Christianity. Relations between Spain and Portugal were regulated by the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which divided lands outside Europe between the two powers. This division was further regulated by the Treaty of Saragossa in 1529, which fixed the exact line in the Pacific at 17 degrees east of the Moluccas Islands. A Spanish explorer, Ferdinand Magellan, arrived a Cebu (part of the chain that became the Philippines) across the Pacific from the Western Hemisphere in 1521. In 1565, the first permanent Spanish settlement was established on Cebu. Manila was established in 1571; it became the capital of Spanish-ruled Philippines. The spread of Spanish influence occurred quickly and peaceably, since there were few large communities able to resist the superior technology and organization, except for the Islamized states in the south, especially Mindanao. None of the desired spices were found in the Philippines. The colonization was, consequently, of only limited success from the Spanish perspective and the local cultural heritage partly replaced by European Christianity and agriculture and other economic activities were reorganized and surplus was exported to Spain. Spanish appointed governors replaced the indigenous rulers. Local exports to Spain, however, were very secondary to Chinese-made goods that Chinese merchants took to Manila, as they had been doing since the end of the first millennium c.e. These goods, primarily silk textiles, tea, and porcelain, were in great demand in Europe, with the result that Manila became the gathering place of Spanish galleons that would sail in convoy annually to ports on the Pacific coast in southern Mexico, whence they would be carried across the isthmus by Mexican porters to Veracruz, a port in the Gulf of Mexico, and loaded onto ships for transport across the Atlantic to Spain. Thus the Philippines were more important to Spain as a gathering place for goods made in China and secondarily from Japan than for its own products. As a result of Spanish rule until the end of the 19th century, the Philippines is the only Asian country with a majority Catholic population. Further reading: Bankoff, Greg. “The Meteorological Contours of Spain’s Imperium in the Pacific, 1521–1898,” Environment and History, Vol. 12, No. 1 (February); Bjork, Katharine. “The Link That Kept the Philippines Spanish: Mexican Merchant Interests and the Manila Trade, 1571– 1815,” Journal of World History, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring 1998); Philippines, Spanish colonization of the 307 McCoy, Alfred W. A History of the Philippines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; Phelan, John Leddy. The Hispanization of the Philippines. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959; Scott, William Henry. Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino and Other Essays in Philippine History. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, 1993. John Walsh piracy in the Atlantic world Not long after the Spanish colonies in the Americas started to generate massive wealth, pirates started to attack the ships, taking the gold, silver, and other treasures from the Americas to Spain and later from Brazil to Portugal. In addition to attacking ships, some of the more daring buccaneers, such as Francis Drake, went as far as attacking ports. While some of the early raiders were freelance pirates, the cost of maintaining a ship and the ability to find a friendly port meant that many were privateers. These were French, Dutch, and more particularly English sailors, who operated in the Caribbean and in the Atlantic on behalf of their government, who had issued them a “letter of marquee,” allowing them to attack enemy shipping in times of war. Often the news of the end of a particular conflict took a long time to reach remote outposts and as a result attacks often still took place in peacetime. Some pirates also regularly exceeded their “letters of marquee” and attacked any ships they came across. Although privateers could use the excuse of attacking enemy ships in time of war, many modern historians are more understanding of their actions given the appalling Spanish treatment of the indigenous population of the Americas, from which they gained much of their gold and silver. The initial attacks on Spanish ships sailing across the Atlantic led the Spanish to establish a treasure fleet from the 1560s. This involved a large number of ships, including many men-of-war, sailing together taking manufactured goods to the Americas and returning with gold or more often silver. By this time, the English, French, and Dutch had established settlements in the Caribbean, which their privateers used as bases in their attacks on the Spanish. The English buccaneer Francis Drake managed to capture some of the Spanish treasure fleet in 1580 and sacked the ports of Santo Domingo and Cartagena in the Caribbean in 1585, and later that year attacked and sacked the port of Cádiz in Spain. This led to the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585–1604, which turned many of the English pirates into privateers, weakening the Spanish merchant navy and providing a large source of profit for English and Dutch traders. While Francis Drake operated ostensibly for patriotic reasons, the Spanish denounced him as a pirate, and by the early 17th century, there were large numbers of pirates operating in the Caribbean. Many used isolated European settlements around the West Indies, with a few operating from their own bases in isolated bays. A few places, such as Port Royal in Jamaica, became famous haunts of the pirates, growing rich but also becoming exceedingly dangerous places, gaining the reputation of being one of the “richest and wickedest” cities in the world. Other places used by pirates included the islands of Antigua and Barbados. 308 piracy in the Atlantic world A 1741 engraving of Henry Morgan, notorious Welsh pirate and buccaneer who plundered Spain’s Caribbean colonies The Thirty Years’ War, which lasted from 1618 until 1648, led to renewed Protestant-Catholic conflict in Europe, which led to fighting in the West Indies, and British as well as Dutch ships attacked those belonging to Spain and France. It was during this period that English privateers and pirates started to use the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua to establish bases, which allowed them to attack Spanish ports and Spanish ships with ease. From 1660 until 1720, the so-called golden age of piracy, pirates again operated as privateers. This period saw some sailing under the famous “Jolly Roger” flag, with attacks by English pirates on both Spanish and French ships. There were also English attacks on the Dutch; the island of Saint Eustatius, a Dutch sugar island, was attacked by pirates and British soldiers on many occasions, changing hands 10 times during the 1660s and early 1670s. French pirates also started operating freely from their ports on the island of Hispaniola (modern-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic). Sir Henry Morgan, a Welsh buccaneer, sacked the Spanish town of Portobelo in Panama, which had been well garrisoned. Morgan later destroyed Panama City in 1671 but was arrested by the British, as the attack violated a treaty between England and Spain. At his trial in London, Morgan was able to prove he had no prior knowledge of the treaty and was released, knighted, and appointed lieutenant governor of Jamaica. Other pirates such as Edward Teach, “Blackbeard,” became infamous not only for his savagery but for his outlandish appearance. He was killed in combat in 1718. There were also female pirates such as Anne Bonny, originally from Ireland, and Mary Read from London, who were captured and tried in 1720 in Jamaica, with both escaping execution. The career of these two female pirates, which started when the former joined the crew of “Calico Jack” Rackham, and the second a ship captured by him, was related in many published books of the period. After 1720, stronger European garrisons throughout the Caribbean caused a massive decline in the number of pirates operating in the region. At the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, the 1714 Treaty of Utrecht allowed the British to sell African slaves in the Americas, and many of the former pirate crews found that they were able to operate legitimately as slave traders. The nations involved in Caribbean trade decided to eliminate the pirate threat to their lucrative trade routes. In 1720, two famous pirates, Charles Vane and “Calico Jack” Rackham, were hanged at Port Royal, and two years later some 41 pirates were hanged there in a single month. Without the ability to seek refuge in places such as Port Royal, although some pirates continued operating through to the 1750s, they had access to fewer and fewer ports. This coincided with the European powers’ massively strengthening their hold on their West Indian possessions, and it became far more likely that pirates would be caught. As a result there was piracy in the Atlantic world 309 Captain William Kidd was hanged in 1701 in London. Kidd was a victim of a larger British force in colonial waters. a decline in piracy, with the former pirates having to find work in the slave trade, legitimate shipping, or the lumber industry, cutting logwood and later mahogany in what became British Honduras (modern- day Belize). The romantic image of the pirates was nurtured by many writers, such as Daniel Defoe, who wrote A General History of Pyrates (1724), which described the lives of many of the more famous individuals, and much later Robert Louis Stevenson in Treasure Island (1883); a small number of pirates published their own accounts. The subject of pirates and piracy remains popular in today’s novels, plays, and films. See also Caribbean, conquest of the; silver in the Americas; slave trade, Africa and the. Further Reading: Botting, Douglas. The Pirates. New York: Time-Life, 1978; Marx, Jenifer. Pirates and Privateers of the Caribbean. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1992; Starkey, David J., E. S. van Eyck van Heslinga, and J. A. de Moor. Pirates and Privateers: New Perspectives on the War on Trade in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1997. Justin Corfield Pizarro, Francisco (c. 1476–1541) Spanish conquistador Ranking with Hernán Cortés as one of the most ruthless and effective of all the Spanish conquistadores, Francisco Pizarro was the principal force behind the conquest of Peru and subjugation of the Inca Empire in the 1530s. Along with his brother Gonzalo and half brother Hernándo, Francisco successfully suppressed a rebellion launched by his erstwhile partner in conquest Diego de Almagro in 1537–38, only to have disgruntled Almagrists acting under the nominal authority of Almagro’s mestizo son, Almagro the Younger, slay him in his palace in Lima on July 26, 1541. An illiterate swineherd as a youth and the illegitimate son of a minor nobleman, Francisco Pizarro was born in Trujillo, Estremadura, Spain, around 1476. He arrived in the Americas in 1510 and participated in the expedition across Panama led by Vasco Núñez de Balboa that led to the European discovery of the Pacific Ocean in 1513. After the first two exploratory expeditions along the Peruvian coast, in 1528, Pizarro returned to Spain to seek the Crown’s sanction (capitulación) for an expedition of conquest. He received it, along with the title of governor and captain-general of Peru, to the dismay of Almagro, who received a much less exalted title. One of his most memorable and consequential acts was in July 1533 when he decided to execute the Inca Atahualpa in Cajamarca to the chagrin of King Charles V, provoking an outcry among Spaniards. He is also credited with founding numerous towns, including the colony’s capital city along the coast, Ciudad de los Reyes (City of the Kings, founded on January 6, 1535), which by the late 1500s had become known as Lima, a corruption of its indigenous name; Cuzco (1534); the coastal city of Trujillo (1535); and San Juan 310 Pizarro, Francisco Francisco Pizarro was the force behind the conquest of the Incas. He was slain in Lima, Peru, on July 26, 1541 (depicted above). de la Frontera, later known as Huamanga (1539). He was also responsible for allotting Indians in encomienda and repartimiento to reward his followers and supporters, a tactic he also used to buy off potential adversaries, including members of the Inca royal family such as Manco Inca’s half brother Pallu, to whom he granted a repartimiento of more than 5,000 Indians in 1539. This was the same year that the Crown granted him the title of marquis and his own coat of arms, which depicted a chained Atahualpa reaching into two chests laden with treasure. His most consequential political error, in the judgment of many scholars, was to sow the seeds of the Almagrist war by his own extreme greed and his niggardly allotments to Almagro, whose supporters slew him in 1541. His many descendants ranked among the richest and most powerful members of Peru’s colonial society. An imposing statue of the legendary conquistador astride his steed can be found in the town of his birth, facing the palace built by his brother Hernándo. Further reading: Gabai, Rafael Varon. Francisco Pizarro and His Brothers: The Illusion of Power in Sixteenth-Century Peru. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997; Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970; Prescott, William H. History of the Conquest of Peru. New York: Modern Library, 1998; orig. 1847. Michael J. Schroeder Plassey, Battle of Robert Clive of the British East India Company was the winner of the Battle of Plassey, 70 miles north of Calcutta in 1757. At the head of 1,000 English and 2,000 Indian (sepoy) soldiers and with eight pieces of artillery, he routed the 50,000 soldiers and 50 Frenchmanned cannons of his opponent Siraj-ud-Daula, the governor, or nawab, of Bengal. This victory established British primacy in Bengal. With the Mughal (Mogul, Moghul) Empire in India in rapid decline in the 18th century, Great Britain and France became competitors for control of the subcontinent. Their rivalry was played out by employees of their respective East India Companies and when the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48) and Seven Years’ War (1756–63) pitted Britain and France on opposing sides, India became a theater of war. France won the first round when its agent in India Joseph Dupleix captured the British outpost Madras in 1746 and then extended French influence in the Indian state of Hyderabad. However Dupleix was outmatched by a brilliant young Briton named Robert Clive, who decided to expand British power to the Bay of Bengal and the Ganges River delta during the Seven Years’ War. First he took revenge on the unpopular Mughal governor of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Daula, for the death of many Britons in the infamous “Black Hole of Calcutta.” He recaptured Calcutta in 1756, then moved upriver and captured the French fort at Chandernagore in the following year. In the next phase of the conflict, the French supported Sirajud- Daula, whose oppressive rule had alienated his Muslim noblemen, including the powerful Mir Jaffa. On the other hand Britain had the support of Bengali businessmen and bankers. These rivalries culminated in the Battle of Plassey, June 23, 1757, which pitted Clive’s 1,000 European soldiers and 2,000 Indian sepoys (no cavalry) and eight cannons against Siraj-ud-Daula’s 50,000 combined infantrymen and cavalry and 50 cannons manned by French soldiers. Mir Jaffa’s neutrality and Siraj-ud- Daula’s flight in the midst of battle caused demoralization and the rout of the latter’s army. Clive lost only 22 European soldiers; fewer than 50 were wounded. Clive’s victory was a turning point in Indian history. French influence was eliminated from Bengal, and at the end of the Seven Years’ War, from all of India. Britain’s client Mir Jaffa was invested the new governor of Bengal by the Mughal emperor in Delhi, who in turn granted landholder’s rights of 882 square miles around Calcutta to the British East India Company. Clive remained in Bengal for two years to organize the new administration. In 1759, the Mughal emperor granted land tax rights of all Bengal and Bihar provinces to the British East India Company and made Clive the highest- ranking noble of the Mughal Empire. The British government made Clive baron of Plassey. Events that developed after Clive’s victory at the Battle of Plassey would change the British East India Company from a trading company to a governing power and draw Britain to conquer the whole of India. Thus the Battle of Plassey was a historic turning point, and its principal participant Robert Clive an empire builder. See also Delhi and Agra; French East India Company. Further reading: Bence-Jones, Mark. Clive of India. London: Constable and Company Limited, 1974; Edwards, Michael. Plassey: The Founding of an Empire. London: Hamish Plassey, Battle of 311 Hamilton Limited, 1969; Hill, S. C. Three Frenchmen in Bengal: The Commercial Ruin of the French Settlements in 1757. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Popul Vuh In 1908, Lewis Spence, one of the foremost scholars of myth and religion of his day, said of the Popul Vuh, “There is no document of greater importance to the study of the pre-Columbian mythology of America than the Popol Vuh. It is the chief source of our knowledge of the mythology of the Kiché [the modern accepted form is the Quiche] people of Central America, and it is further of considerable comparative value when studied in conjunction with the mythology of the Nahuatlacâ, or Mexican peoples.” Popul Vuh means “Record of the Community” and is literally translated as “Book of the Mat,” perhaps because the earliest versions were delivered orally as people sat together on their woven mats. The Popul Vuh is one of two sacred texts of the Mayan Indians of Mesoamerica, Central America, and Mexico that have survived. While the Popul Vuh belongs to the Quiche Maya of Guatemala, the Chilam Balam was written among the Maya of Yucatán in Mexico. Mesoamerican history has been divided into distinct periods by historians and archaeologists for purposes of study. These are the Preclassic Period of history (2000 b.c.e. to 300 c.e.), the Classic Period (300 c.e. to 900 c.e.), and the Postclassic (900 c.e. to 1520 c.e.), the year before Hernán Cortés crushed the last major indigenous kingdom, the Aztec Empire, thus ending the rule of Mexicans. The Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán, today’s Mexico City, succumbed to Hernán Cortés in 1521. The Mayas of Yucatán defied Spanish conquest until 1528, when they were defeated by Pedro de Alvarado, perhaps the most brutal of Cortés’s conquistadores. The Popul Vuh can be dated from after the Classic Period among the Maya. The Mayan people existed in two communities, one in the northern Yucatán and the other in the Guatemalan highlands. The Chilam Balam owes its origin to the Mayas of Yucatán, and the Popul Vuh to those in Guatemala. Today, although their kingdom has long since vanished, the Quiche Maya still exist in Guatemala as a definable tribe proud of the Popul Vuh, despite a brutal government campaign against them. Indeed some historians of Mesoamerica maintain that Guatemala was in fact the first home of the Maya people. What most scholars agree about is that the area influenced by the Maya was great. In the aftermath of the Spanish conquest, there was a massive destruction of ancient Aztec and Mayan texts by the missionaries who accompanied the Spanish in their conquest of Mesoamerica. Having seen the human sacrifice on a large scale by Aztec priests in the temples in Tenochtitlán (many victims were captive Spanish they had known), they determined such a culture could only be demonic and thus consigned the Mayan and Aztec books, or Mesoamerican Codices, to the flames. Diego de Landa, who became the bishop of Yucatán, burned 27 hieroglyphic manuscripts in 1562; despite the criticism de Landa received as a result of his actions, historians believe that other missionaries probably followed suit. Three Mayan codices were known to have survived in Paris, Madrid, and Dresden, Germany. However, both the Popul Vuh and the Chilam Balam appear to owe their survival to the direct intervention of missionaries who felt that the cultures that had been conquered were worthy of preservation. After the conquest, missionaries set about to teach sons of the Maya and Aztec nobility Spanish to help them preserve their ancient culture in writing. It is Francisco Ximénez, who came to Guatemala in 1688, who played a pivotal role in the discovery of the Popul Vuh. For a time after Ximénez’s death, it appeared the Popul Vuh had been lost, but it was recovered in library of the University of San Carlos in Guatemala. Researchers learned that Ximénez had placed it in his convent’s library, and it passed to the university library in 1830. The Popul Vuh itself is a fascinating document that belongs in the category of creation myths, in which people record their understanding of the creation of the world. Dennis Tedlock, editor of a recent edition of Popul Vuh, records that its writers begin “their narrative in a world that has nothing but an empty sky above and a calm sea below. When the gods of the sky and earth meet, ‘they conceive [of] the emergence of the earth from the sea and the growth of plants and people on its surface.’ After three failed attempts, the gods are successful in creating the first real human beings out of corn, a symbol of the importance of corn in all the indigenous cultures of North, Central, and South America.” First, four men are created, and then four women to keep them company on the earth. “From these couples,” Tedlock explains, “come the leading Quiche [Maya] lineages. . . . Other lineages and peoples also come into being, and they all begin to multiply” to populate the face of the earth. 312 Popul Vuh See also Alvarado, Pedro de; Aztecs (Mexica); Yucatán, conquest of. Further reading: Coe, Michael D. The Maya. London: Thames and Hudson, 2005; Collier, John. Indians of the Americas. New York: Mentor Books, 1947; Hultkrantz, Ake. The Religions of the American Indians. Monica Setterwall, trans. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. John Murphy Potosí (silver mines of colonial Peru) The extensive silver mines of the mountain of Potosí (in the highlands of contemporary Bolivia, at an altitude of 4,800 meters) proved among the most important sources of wealth in all of Spain’s New World holdings, fleetingly filling the coffers of the Spanish treasury for more than two centuries while relegating thousands of Indian laborers to a hellish work existence. Silver ore was serendipitously discovered at Potosí by an Indian yanacona (servant) named Diego Gualpa in 1545. Within a few years there had commenced a vast silver rush, which peaked in the 1590s, after which silver production underwent a gradual decline, though the mines continued to be worked throughout the colonial period. In 1545, the population of Potosí and its environs stood at around 3,000. Thirty-five years later, in 1580, the numbers had swelled to around 120,000, and by 1650 to around 160,000, making the remote mining center one of the largest urban concentrations in the world. Crucial to the stupendous growth of Potosí and its mining economy was the introduction of the mercury amalgamation process in 1572. Before this, Indian laborers had employed the pre-Columbian huayra technique for refining silver, which harnessed the highlands’ high winds to facilitate the smelting process. The first mercury mines at Huancavelica were discovered in 1559; others came into operation soon after. In 1571, after numerous trials, the Spanish perfected the techniques for refining Potosí’s silver ore with Huancavelica’s mercury, prompting Viceroy Francisco de Toledo to gush that the union of the two mines would create the world’s greatest marriage. Illustrative of the enormous quantities of wealth extracted from colonial Peru’s “mountain of silver,” the Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote changed the phrase “worth a Peru” (describing Francisco Pizarro’s plunder during the conquest of Peru) to “worth a Potosí.” Official figures show a quadrupling of silver exports to Spain from Potosí from 1571–75 to 1581–85 (from 4.6 million to 19.1 million pesos), to a peak of around 5 million pesos annually in the 1590s. By 1650, the number had dropped to around 3 million pesos annually, after which it continued to decline until the early 1700s, when the mining economy underwent a gradual resurgence, though it never reached its former heights. Potosí’s burgeoning mining economy also had important local and regional ripple effects, sparking the growth of commerce, agriculture, and specialized craftwork in surrounding communities, and in regional economies as distant as Río de la Plata, Chile, and northern Peru. Working conditions in the mines were exceedingly brutal. “Some four years ago,” wrote the Spaniard Domingo de Santo Tomás to the Council of the Indies in 1550, in a typical description, “to the complete perdition of this land, there was discovered a mouth of hell, into which a great mass of people enter every year and are sacrificed by the greed of the Spaniards to their ‘god.’ This is your silver mine called Potosí.” Another Spaniard, Rodrigo de Loaisa, described the typical weeklong stint in the mines: “The Indians enter these infernal pits by some leather ropes like staircases . . . Once inside, they spend the whole week in there without emerging, working with tallow candles. They are in great danger inside there . . . If 20 healthy Indians enter on Monday, half may emerge crippled on Saturday.” According to another Spaniard, Alfonso Messia, Indian laborers descended hundreds of feet into the mines, “where the night is perpetual. It is always necessary to work by candlelight, with the air thick and evil-smelling, enclosed in the bowels of the earth. The ascent and descent are highly dangerous, for they come up loaded with their sack of metal tied to their backs, taking fully four our five hours step by step, and if they make the slightest false step they may fall seven hundred feet.” The great silver mines of Potosí thus became symbolic not only of fabulous wealth, but of Spain’s oppression and exploitation of Indian laborers, and Indian resilience and survival in the face of the extreme brutality of colonial rule. See also mercantilism; Peru, Viceroyalty of; silver in the Americas. Further reading. Galeano, Eduardo. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. London: Monthly Review Press, 1973; Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970; Lynch, John. Spain under the Hapsburgs, Vol. 2, Spain and America, 1598–1700. New York: New York University Press, 1984. Michael J. Schroeder Potosí (silver mines of colonial Peru) 313 Powhatan Confederacy The Powhatan Confederacy, which included approximately 30 different Algonquian-speaking tribes at the height of its power, developed on the Eastern Seaboard of North America in present-day Virginia. Powhatan, who was the leader of this confederacy in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, maintained control from his main residence in Werowocomoco on the York River. Before the English settled at Jamestown in 1607, the Powhatan Confederacy was the strongest force in the area. Powhatan kept control by marrying the daughters of defeated chiefdoms in an attempt to link their families to his family and appointing a family member to the position of chief. To minimize the risk of tribes within the confederacy combating one another, Powhatan organized a hunting expedition in the Piedmont to incite conflict against the Monacan and Manahoac tribes. Despite the fact that there was some degree of cooperation between the Powhatan and the English colonists, mutual suspicion destroyed the relationship between the two races. The English colonists thought very highly of Powhatan. Despite the desire to use the English as allies, Powhatan was still suspicious of their intentions and attempted to contain their settlement; he was also concerned that the English might ally with his enemies. In order to contain the English settlement of Jamestown, Powhatan used the Paspahegh to create conflict with the English settlers. The English soon adopted another policy to deal with the Powhatan—kidnap their children to force the Powhatan into a more subservient position. In 1613, the English captured Powhatan’s daughter Pocahontas and took her back to Jamestown, where she converted to Christianity and assumed the name Rebecca. Powhatan accepted the fact that the English had captured his daughter and tried to reach some peace settlement by offering her to the English. The peace settlement Powhatan arranged with the colonists improved relations between the Powhatan and the English colonists. Pocahontas accepted the English way of life by dressing in European fashions, marrying an Englishman named John Rolfe in 1614, and giving birth to a child. She left her father to travel to England, where she succumbed to disease in 1617. Her father died in 1618 and was replaced by his brother Opechancanough, who changed the dynamics in the relationship between the Powhatan and the English colonists. The major point of contention between the Powhatan and the English arose over ownership of land as the English colonists needed a significant area of land to grow tobacco. The fact that more English colonists continued to arrive in Virginia strengthened the resolve of Opechancanough to strike at the English before their numbers became too great. The first major attack took place on March 22, 1622, and resulted in the death of approximately 347 colonists. The English retaliated by organizing offensives against Powhatan towns and destroying their crops before the harvesting period. The Powhatan Confederacy, suffering from starvation, participated in peace negotiations with the English colonists. In 1623, at the closing stages of the peace talks, 250 natives met with the leaders of the English colony in what they believed was a cordial meeting, but the English poisoned the drinks of the natives and killed the delegation. This led to further reprisals by the Powhatan, who organized a massive offensive on April 18, 1644, which resulted in the deaths of more than 400 colonists. At this point, it was a losing battle for the Powhatan as there were too many colonists for them to overcome. The resistance of the Powhatan to English imperialism sustained a further blow when Opechancanough was 314 Powhatan Confederacy Illustration detail from a map of Virginia of 1612 showing Powhatan in the royal wigwam wearing a crown of feathers captured in 1646 by the English and shot by a disgruntled colonist while in prison. The Powhatan Confederacy suffered greatly from English colonization, as frequent warfare and epidemics dropped the population from 24,000 Algonquians when the English settled Jamestown in 1607 to 2,000 Algonquians in 1669. The final dispersal for the Powhatan Confederacy occurred with the Treaty of Albany in 1722, which protected the Powhatan from Iroquois attacks, allowing the Powhatan to disperse into various groups. See also James I; natives of North America; tobacco in colonial British America; Puritans and Puritanism. Further reading: Milton, Giles. Big Chief Elizabeth: The Adventures and Fate of the First English Colonists in America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000; Nobles, Gregory. American Frontiers: Cultural Encounters and Continental Conquest. New York: Hill & Wang, 1997; Taylor, Alan. American Colonies: The Settling of North America. New York: Penguin Books, 2001. Brian de Ruiter printing press, Europe and the Before 1450, books were produced by scribes who laboriously copied an existing book by hand. Between 1455 and 1500, the printing press, containing movable type using manufactured paper, revolutionized book production. By 1500, hundreds of printing presses throughout Europe had produced more than 6 million books, roughly equivalent to the total number of books produced in the prior 15 centuries. This revolution was begun by an ordinary man named Johann Gutenberg (c. 1400–1468). Gutenberg had a printing shop in Mainz, Germany. Though often called the “inventor of movable type,” Gutenberg did not invent any of the major parts of the printing process but took the concepts and engineered a solution that touched off a rapid growth in printing. Prior to the printing press, books were made at great expense by hand. Only kings, universities, large churches, or monasteries could afford the price of a book. The rising merchant class and lower nobility created a demand for a more economical book. The components of the printing process had recently become available. Paper production had begun in Italy, taking rag stock, mixing it into pulp, then pressing it in a felt press. Paper cost about one-sixth the price of vellum (calf- or sheepskin). The printing press was already in existence for block prints of artwork, or other hand-crafted printing. Oil-based ink that would work well for transfer to paper was in existence. The concept of movable type (individual letters or characters that could be put into a holder) had been invented by the Chinese centuries before and had slowly made its way over to Europe. The genius of Gutenberg was in the careful perfection of a printing system. Gutenberg adapted a press to hold a form containing metal pieces. He manufactured more than 300 different symbols including capital letters, lowercase letters, numerals, large block letters, and ligatures (two or more letters attached together). He perfected the ink to work on paper stock acquired from Italy (an oil-based ink that would not smear, nor bleed through the paper). He devised a system of rolling the ink onto the type form and finally printing it onto paper. Each page would be individually prepared by a skilled typesetter, and then many copies of that page would be printed by the press operator. Gutenberg first produced some small works (a Latin grammar), but then with business partners Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer providing funding, Gutenberg undertook to produce a copy of the Bible in Latin beginning in 1450. By 1454 or 1455, the first edition was complete. The Gutenberg Bible uses a typeface that appears hand-printed, since it was produced to compete with hand-printed bibles (at a much lower cost). The Bible would then be decorated (beginning letters colored by hand), and other annotations (or rubrications) added. Books printed with this new printing press were enormously popular. By 1458, there were several other printers in Germany and Switzerland. By 1475, hundreds of printers with their printing presses were producing editions of books throughout Europe. By 1500, more than 40,000 editions of various works had been produced by printing presses. While advancements were made to speed up the process of producing and ordering the movable type, the fundamentals of the printing press did not change till the 20th century with the advent of electromechanical printing and finally computer-based printing. Martin Luther first nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the castle church in Wittenberg in 1517, 60 years after the invention of the printing press process by Gutenberg. Luther intended to raise an academic debate among the region’s theologians. Instead he ignited a storm of controversy that swept Europe in the rapid communication of his theses through the printing press. Within weeks of his posting the Ninety-five Theses, printers in Wittenberg and other places were selling copies as a short pamphlet, distributing it throughout Germany printing press, Europe and the 315 and even other countries in western Europe. Luther was a prolific and popular writer. Just over a year later in 1519, he received a note from a printer Basel named Johannes Froben: “We sent six hundred copies of your collected works which I published to France and Spain. They are sold in Paris, read and appreciated at the Sorbonne. The book dealer Clavus of Pavia took a sizable number to Italy to sell them everywhere in the cities. I have sent copies also to England and Babant and have only ten copies left in the storeroom. I have never had such good luck with a book.” Many of Luther’s shorter works were published as pamphlets, easily accessible to merchants, lesser nobility, and others who could read. The printing press enabled the rapid spread of Reformation. The advent of the printing press produced other societal changes. With books more accessible, the system of instruction at the university level changed. Prior to the printing press, a professor would read from a single book (often the only copy at the university) and the students would take notes. With the printing press, great works by authors of past eras were published more broadly, bringing the Renaissance era to full fruition. The work of scientists such as Copernicus and Isaac Newton were published, bringing both debate and further development to science. It also increased the desire of those in power to control what was published in their country or church. The first Index of Forbidden Books was published by King Henry viii of England in 1526, and the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited (or Forbidden) Books was published in 1559 and revised constantly thereafter. Further reading: Rice, Eugene F. The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460–1559. New York: W. W. Norton, 1970; Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Volume VII, Modern Christianity: The German Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002; Spitz, Lewis W. The Renaissance and Reformation Movements. Vol. 2, The Reformation. St. Louis: Concordia, 1987. Bruce D. Franson Pueblo Revolt Also known as Popé’s Rebellion, the Pueblo Revolt took place in 1680 and freed the Pueblo Indians of Spanish control for 12 years until the Spanish reconquered the area in 1692. The revolt was organized by the medicine man Popé from the Tewa Pueblo. The revolt began on August 10, 1680, and by August 21 the Pueblo Indians had captured Santa Fe and Popé had made himself the new ruler. Unfortunately for the Pueblos, Popé proved to be as harsh a ruler as the Spanish and when he died in 1688, the Pueblos were in a constant state of civil war, which the Spanish used to their advantage. The Spanish return to the area started in 1689 with the capture of Zia Pueblo and ended with the capture of Santa Fe in 1692. Over the next four years, the Spanish consolidated their hold on the Pueblos, who again submitted to Spanish rule. In the early 1670s, the Pueblo Indians formed an alliance with their hereditary enemies the Apache against the Spanish in the American Southwest. They then conducted raids against the Spanish that eventually forced them to stop sending supply convoys to their frontier outposts. Then in 1672, the Spanish governor arrested 47 lesser Pueblo chiefs, hanging three. One of the chiefs arrested was Popé, who after several years in prison was released and went into hiding in Taos. From there he started to organize a rebellion in secret. He had originally targeted August 13, 1680, for the start of the rebellion but, concerned that the Spanish had found out about the rebellion, he moved the date up to August 10. Even though the Spanish had found out about the rebellion, the Pueblos were still able to gain an element of surprise. 316 Pueblo Revolt “The Sentinel”—a Pueblo scout, peering from behind a large rock formation, serves as a lookout. Attacks were launched on the three major missions (Taos, Pecos, and Acoma) as well as the lesser missions and the haciendas (large ranches), destroying them and killing the inhabitants. Popé and his army moved against Santa Fe on August 15, killing settlers and missionaries as they went. The garrison of 50 men was able to hold out for four days with the help of the cannon they had. Santa Fe was captured on August 21 with Popé making himself the new ruler of the area. Spanish governor Antonio de Oterrmin and 2,500 settlers fled down the river in order to escape the Pueblo Indians. Unfortunately for the Pueblos, Popé proved himself to be no better a ruler than the Spanish. He taxed and abused his people for the next eight years until he died in 1688. Even with Popé’s death the Pueblos continued in a state of chaos and civil war that only opened the way for the Spanish to return. The Spanish started their reconquest of the Pueblos with the capture of Zia Pueblo in 1689. Then in 1692, governor Don Diego de Vargas retook Santa Fe. Over the next four years, the Spanish put all the Pueblos back under their rule. See also Natives of North America; Oñate, Juan de. Further reading: Axelrod, Alan. America’s Wars. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2002; Knaut, Andrew L. The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in Seventeenth-Century New Mexico. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995; Roberts, David. The Pueblo Revolt: The Secret Rebellion That Drove the Spaniards Out of the Southwest. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Puritanism in North America Puritanism in North America is an extension to American shores of the challenge to the religious orthodoxy of England. With settlement came theology. Puritanism itself can be a diverse term and not one associated with a particular church or denomination. Most Puritans were radical Protestants who arose following the Reformation in the late 16th century and who rebelled against some or all aspects of the Elizabethan religious sentiments of this period. Influenced by the Calvinist theology of Protestantism found in Europe, Puritans felt that the existing Anglican Church’s practices and structures were corrupted and in need of “purifying” in order to purge the church of kings, idolatry, and popery. Their call was for strict biblical interpretation, and the creation of a “priesthood of all believers.” Puritan believers should follow a clear moral path, which stressed God’s direct and total command of mankind’s place on earth. This belief system saw the individual directed by the grace of God, and as such, the believer must be obedient, disciplined, humble, and always grateful for God’s blessings. To support such a system ceremonies should be simple, church decorations kept to a minimum, superstition should be confronted, education and Bible reading for all encouraged, clothing for priests and church members simple and free from adornment, and high personal morality practiced as a matter of faith. In time there would grow opposition to work or pleasure being taken on the Sabbath, drama, gambling, some forms of music, and even poetry if deemed sinful or erotic. church structure It was the Puritans’ challenge to church authority that brought conflict with the state, a factor that would lead to government persecution and the need to migrate to the New World to establish religiously inspired colonies on the Puritan model. The Church of England was an episcopal hierarchy whose head was the monarch. This was the church of vestments, pomp, ritual, ecclesiastical courts, and the liturgical order of the Book of Common Prayer. It was this structure that permitted the perceived church decadence that the Puritans objected to. Arguments for the presbyterian organizational model emerged in the 1570s, followed by the Congregationalist approach, which gave power to each congregation to organize themselves and choose their own church leaders. This latter model would come to dominate the church organization in New England and other colonies north of Virginia. The Puritan struggles against the church and state did not win victories in the early 17th century and had to await the turbulence of the English Civil War in the 1640s to gain an upper hand, but only a temporary one, which ended with the Commonwealth and the Restoration of 1660. It was this failure to change conditions that led the Puritans to found American colonies as “Beacons on the Hill” for others to follow. It was the Separatists who had given up reforming the Church of England who first established a permanent American colony. Sailing on the Mayflower and led by William Bradford and his Pilgrim followers, these Separatists established the Plymouth Plantation in Massachusetts in 1620. By 1630 other non-Separatist Puritans established themselves in Massachusetts Bay Colony, which became the hub for the spread of varieties of Puritanism Puritanism in North America 317 throughout what became New England. Numbers grew rapidly, reaching approximately 20,000 in 1640 and more than 100,000 by 1700. Splits also occurred within the Puritan ranks leading to the establishment of other Protestant colonies such as Rhode Island in the 1640s, which followed a Baptist tradition. Other Protestant offshoots such as the Society of Friends or Quakers, which shared some Puritan tenets, settled in Pennsylvania, as did other Protestant settlers from Germany and Sweden, such as the Moravians and Lutherans, who founded other communities along the Eastern Seaboard. The Puritan impact with its Calvinistic commitment to predestination, an acceptance of conversion as essential to spirituality, and belief in an elect membership within each church carried political dimension, which influenced governance in the major Puritan colonies. Some have argued that this mixture of church and state created a theocracy, particularly in Massachusetts Bay. Religious toleration, which was denied them in England, where they were viewed as dissenters, was not translated into general practice in their new lands. As the decades progressed, difficulties arose as to how the power of the elect could be transferred to their descendents. The Half-Way Covenant was one device, but in time, particularly with political change in England following the Glorious Revolution in 1688, greater toleration of those deemed the nonelect developed both inside and outside the Puritan colonies by the 18th century. Puritanism in North America helped make the successful settlement of prosperous English colonies a reality. Puritan belief in covenants, individual voices, simplicity, education, and morality would have a lasting effect on the development of democratic views and traditions, which, in turn, would have a major and lasting influence upon American life. See also Puritans and Puritanism. Further reading: Hill, Christopher. Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England. London: Pimlico, 2002; Miller, Perry. Errand into the Wilderness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975; Rutman, Darrett H. American Puritanism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980; Schuldiner, Michael, ed. Studies in Puritan American Spirituality from Anne Bradstreet to Abraham Lincoln. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2005; Simpson, Alan. Puritanism in Old and New England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Theodore W. Eversole Puritans and Puritanism In the 16th and 17th centuries, English Puritans were Calvinists in theological allegiance. They believed in the supreme authority of God and the evangelical truth of the Bible, emphasized the predestinated salvation of the elect by God’s grace alone, strove to rehabilitate depraved human souls by living a saintly life out of gratitude of God’s grace, and preferred organizing of electoral and congregational communities according to the providence of God to earthly authority. The Puritans shared a strong antipapal and anti-Catholic sentiment but disagreed as to how to construct a heavenly kingdom on earth. The English Puritans distinguished themselves from other Protestants of the same period by their absolute conviction that all human beliefs, institutions, and actions ought to be rigorously verified by the literal meaning and syllogism of the Bible. The complicated interactions among the Puritans, the Anglicans, and the Catholics had significant impact upon the direction of the Church of England and the emerging modern English nation during the Tudor and Stuart periods. Queen Elizabeth’s role At the beginning of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign (1558– 1603), the exiled English Protestants, victims of the Marian restoration of Roman Catholicism, returned from the Continent, where they had experienced a “purer” Christian worship than that was prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer sanctioned by the English parliament of 1552. Some of their leaders believed that the Elizabethan Church of England retained “impure” Catholic elements in its liturgical formation. A minority of radical Puritan clergy also wanted to replace the Anglican episcopacy with the Calvinist congregational structure and presented their demands in the Admonitions to Parliament in 1572. The document never reached the floor of Parliament because it displeased the queen. Nevertheless, Puritan Nonconformists, those who refused to use the Book of Common Prayer in their congregations, began to emerge. The Puritans, in general, did not threaten the queen’s regime; neither did they openly break with James I (r. 1603–28) at the beginning of his reign. In the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, the king authorized the production of the King James Version of the Bible, which pleased all Protestants, including the Puritans. Nevertheless, the king vehemently defended his divine right and refused to make any concession to the Puritan Nonconformist demands; some Puritans grew discouraged about their reform efforts and began to separate 318 Puritans and Puritanism Puritans and Puritanism 319 themselves from the Church of England. Those separatists would soon migrate to the New England colonies. There, they established their Congregationalist churches and spread their beliefs, work ethics, and way of life. In the next two centuries, American Puritanism significantly impacted American political and social structures. In England, the Puritans became revolutionaries under Charles I (r. 1628–49), when the fear of Catholic restoration, complicated by other social, political, and religious factors, pushed England into civil war (1642–60). Between 1643 and 1647, many Puritan teachings and rituals were incorporated into the Westminster Confession and Catechisms sanctioned by the Long Parliament, which enhanced the Puritan influence against the Stuart king, but they were strongly opposed to the ideas of the church-state relationship embodied in those documents. After the parliamentary New Model Army, composed mostly of the Puritan volunteers, defeated and executed the king in 1649, Oliver Cromwell, the Puritan general and Lord Protector, experimented with a Puritan-styled Commonwealth during the Interregnum (1649–60). Cromwell’s moderate and tolerant policies were disrupted by fellow Puritan radicals: the diggers, the levellers, and the officers and soldiers who followed the apocalyptic prophecy of the fifth monarchists. Stuart Restoration During the Stuart Restoration (1660–88), Charles ii (r. 1660–85) reestablished royal authority and the Church of England. From 1661 to 1665, Parliament passed a set of laws to restrict the nonconformist Puritans and Catholics, known as the Clarendon Code. The code required the Puritans to conform to the Anglican Church and its supreme governor, the king, and to use the Book of Common Prayer in public worship. It also prohibited their gatherings of more than five persons and their being within five miles of a city. In 1672, the Test Act excluded about 2,000 nonconformist Puritans from holding public office. These prejudicial and persecutory policies became moderated in the Glorious Revolution (1688–89), when the Puritans began to be able to live under the laws prescribed by the Act of Toleration in 1689. Some of the discriminating mechanisms against the Puritans remained effective in different legal forms until the early 19th century. After the Glorious Revolution, the English Puritans gradually faded away from the center of English parliamentary politics, which began to be dominated by two contentious parties, the Tories and the Whigs. In the American colonies, the Puritan movements declined after the American Revolution. See also Bible translations; Calvin, John; Mary I; Puritanism in North America; Stuart, House of (England); Tudor dynasty. Further reading: Collinson, Patrick. The Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988; Lake, Peter. Anglicans and Puritans?: Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker. London: Allen & Unwin, 1988; Miller, Perry. The New England Mind. Boston: Beacon Press: 1961. Wenxi Liu

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

Pacifi c exploration/annexation From the time that the Spanish navigator Vasco Núñez de Balboa stood and gazed in silence at the vastness of the Pacifi c Ocean in 1513, explorers from around the globe have been fascinated with its mysteries and sheer size. The discovery of the Pacifi c Ocean opened up new areas of exploration and eventually led to the settlement of the New World, which forever changed life on the planet as it existed in Balboa’s time. Exploration of the Pacifi c also provided cartographers with the information needed to chart the entire globe more completely than had ever been done before. In the beginning, the Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese had led the way in exploring the world. However, as exploration of the Pacifi c became both more urgent and profi table, Britain and France also fi nanced expeditions. Each new voyage added to existing maritime knowledge of tides, currents, and wind patterns and helped to discover new navigational guides that made exploration safer and more productive for ships and their crews. Seven years after Balboa discovered the Pacifi c Ocean, Ferdinand Magellan (Fernão de Magalhães) of Portugal became the fi rst navigator to circumnavigate the globe and cross Balboa’s ocean, which he named the Pacifi c to honor its serenity. The path that Magellan traveled, which bears his name, is now known as the Strait of Magellan. Thus, Magellan became the fi rst known explorer in the history of the world to travel the waters of the South Pacifi c. Scientists of his time believed that in order for the balance of the Northern Hemisphere to be maintained, an undiscovered continent, which they had named Terra Australis Incognita, would have to be located in the furthest areas of the Southern Hemisphere. Over the next 250 years, countless explorers attempted to fi nd this mysterious southern continent. By the 18th century, the question became how soon new lands could be claimed by nations looking for colonies with rich resources. This new emphasis on exploration and annexation arose out of the massive changes that were taking place in Europe. After Sir Isaac Newton introduced the notion that science was better suited than philosophy to explain the world, educated Europeans became hungry for any knowledge that broadened their understanding of the world in which they lived. As a result, the Enlightenment brought about new social and political orders that were accompanied by a desire to learn more about non-Western societies. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution was creating increasing demands for raw materials and new products that could be exploited for trade. Recent discoveries in the fi eld of navigation, such as the chronometer and the English Nautical Almanac, provided navigators with more exact methods of computing longitude and longitude in open water, making voyages of discovery safer and more productive. In the 18th century all of these changes came together to fuel the desire to explore the Pacifi c Ocean. ENGLAND AND THE PACIFIC In August 1766 aboard the H.M.S. Dolphin, Captain Samuel Wallis sailed from Plymouth, England, with P orders to fi nd the Great Southern Continent and claim it for Britain. He was accompanied by Captain Philip Carteret in the H.M.S. Swallow. On June 28, 1767, after navigating the Strait of Magellan, the Dolphin discovered the island of Tahiti, where they were met by hundreds of Tahitians in canoes. After establishing friendly relations with the curious Tahitians, Wallis docked in Matavi Bay. However, the natives decided they were under attack and began pelting the ship with stones. Wallis responded with gunfi re, destroying at least 50 canoes. Afterwards, the Tahitians brought out young girls to entice the sailors back to the beach. Satisfi ed that the danger was past, trading began in earnest, with the English trading nails for young girls, chicken, fruit, and hogs. Wallis was forced to confi ne his men to the ship to keep them away from the girls. In May 1768 offi cials in London learned of Wallis’s discovery of this new tropical paradise. CAPTAIN COOK Of all British explorers who traveled the Pacifi c in the 18th century, Captain James Cook was the best known and most respected. In 1768 King George III chose Cook to lead a geographical and scientifi c expedition in which the Royal Society planned to observe an upcoming phenomenon that involved the planet Venus passing between the Earth and the Sun. Scientists predicted that observations of this phenomenon would provide the information needed to calculate the exact distance from the Earth to the Sun. Since Tahiti was believed to be an ideal spot for observing the event, Cook traveled there. He was also charged with exploring the coast of New Zealand and continuing the search for the Great Southern Continent. Consequently, Cook became the fi rst navigator to explore the area of the Pacifi c Ocean that lies between New Zealand and South America. He made three separate voyages to the Pacifi c between 1768 and 1779, and his accomplishments include disproving the existance of the mythical southern continent, discovering the Hawaiian Islands, claiming parts of Australia for Britain, charting the 300-mile area from Oregon to beyond the Bering Strait, and providing the fi rst comprehensive map of the Pacifi c. On his fi rst journey to the Pacifi c as captain of the Endeavour, Cook worked for half pay because he was not as experienced as other navigators who had sought the assignment. Cook’s entourage was made up of 119 individuals, including 11 passengers. The most amazing thing about Cook’s journey was that he did not lose a single individual to scurvy, which was considered the plague of long oceangoing voyages. Avoiding the mistakes of earlier navigators, Cook stocked the Endeavour with a variety of foods that included portable soups, sauerkraut, onions, evaporated milk, vinegar, lemon juice, and all sorts of vegetables and fruits. Initially, Cook followed the path established by previous navigators, traveling along the Strait of le Maire to sail between Tierra del Fuego and Staten Island. From there, Cook sailed westward. By the time, the Endeavour reached Tahiti, Cook and his passengers had traveled some 5,000 miles. On June 3, 1769, with the assistance of three telescopes, the scientists were able to observe Venus as it crossed between the Earth and the Sun. Cook remained in Tahiti for three months and then sailed south into unknown territory, eventually hoisting the fl ag over the Society Islands. Over a six-month period, Cook and his crew navigated the coast of New Zealand, charting a 2,400-mile area while being besieged by hostile aborigines and severe storms. On April 28, 1770, the Endeavour anchored at Botany Bay in Australia, allowing Cook to chart and name the area’s various islands and bays. When they reached the 80,000-square-mile area known as the Great Barrier Reef, which reached from the tropic of Capricorn to the coast of New Guinea, the Endeavour struck a reef. After repairing the ship, Cook set out for the East Indies. Thirty-eight members of the crew were lost to malaria and dysentery over the coming months. Nevertheless, by the time Cook returned to England, he had added a considerable amount of land to the British Empire. On July 13, 1772, Cook again set sail with orders to circumnavigate Antarctica and settle the question of whether or not another continent existed. The Resolution and the Adventure set out together, and Cook’s plan was to continue sailing southward after traversing the area between Madeira and the Cape of Good Hope. This was the fi rst voyage to circumnavigate the Earth from west to east. Cook also became the fi rst navigator to cross the Antarctic Circle, discovering thousands of islands along the way. His journey included extensive explorations of Easter Island, the New Hebrides, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, the Marquesas, and the Isle of Pine. The Resolution arrived at Spithead on July 30, 1775. In honor of his explorations, Captain Cook was named Commander Cook. After Captain Cook’s exploration of the southernmost continent laid to rest the question of whether or not an unidentifi ed continent still existed, Cook shifted his focus north and renewed his attempts to fi nd the elusive Northwest Passage, which could decrease travel time between Britain and the East Indies. On July 12, 1776, the Resolution again set sail with instruc- 318 Pacific exploration/annexation tions to travel from west to east, reversing the routes of earlier expeditions. After spending time in Tahiti, Tasmania, and New Zealand, the Resolution turned north in December 1777, leading to the discovery of the Channel and Sandwich Islands, which were part of the kingdom of Hawaii. By April 26, 1778, Cook had reached the northernmost point of North America, which he named Cape Prince of Wales. When the ship traveled through the Bering Strait, Cook met solid walls of ice. With winter coming on, he decided to turn around and head back toward the Hawaiian Islands. This was to be the last lap of his fi nal voyage. In Kealakekua Bay, on February 14, 1779, a dispute with locals ended in Cook’s being murdered. However, his infl uence did not end with his death. Other navigators chose to explore the waters of the Pacifi c and complete Cook’s unfi nished work. It was another English explorer who ultimately succeeded in fi nding the Northwest Passage. This was accomplished during a search for members of a lost expedition led by Sir John Franklin who had been trying to force his way through the Arctic from Baffi n Bay to the Beaufort Sea to discover the passage. Exploring the relevant area from 1850 to 1854, Robert John McClure became the fi rst person to traverse the Northwest Passage, although he traveled part of the way by sledge. McClure’s ship was ice-bound for three years around Banks Islands, but he and his crew were rescued at the point of starvation by a party led by Sir Edward Belcher. It was not until 1906 that Norwegian Roald Amundsen in the ship Gjoa succeeded in traversing the Northwest Passage entirely by ship. FRANCE AND THE PACIFIC By the late 18th century, France had developed a strong interest in the Pacifi c Islands, which it believed to be fi lled with uncivilized but noble savages. The government was convinced that these islands would open up new avenues of trade and provide philosophers and scientists with new subjects for study. Most important, France wanted new colonies to make up for those that had been lost in North America and India. As a result, in November 1766, three months after Captain Wallis sailed from Plymouth, England, Chevalier Louis-Antoine de Bougainville set sail on the Boudeuse, charged with discovering and claiming for France the southern continent that was believed to exist in the uncharted areas of the South Pacifi c. Two scientists and a crew of 200 accompanied Bougainville. In April 1768, two years after Wallis’s discovery of Tahiti, Bougainville and his crew rediscovered and claimed the island, which Bougainville named Nouvelle Cythère, or New Cythera, after the Greek mythological Utopia. The Tahitians again offered their young girls in trade, with the result that the French left numerous cases of venereal disease behind when they left the island. When they returned to France, they were accompanied by the Tahitian Shurutura. Bougainville’s books about his voyage became an instant best seller in France. When La Pérouse set sail in August 1828 to explore the Pacifi c Ocean, he was determined to seek his own path. Instead of traveling east as Cook had done, he mimicked the actions of previous navigators and traveled west. In June of the following year La Pérouse arrived at the point in Alaska where Cook had turned back in 1776. The Frenchman explored the area between Alaska and Monterey, California, and then headed for Macao in the South China Sea, where he charted the East Asian coast of the Pacifi c. By the summer of 1789 La Pérouse had begun his journey up the Pacifi c coast of Asia. Between 1837 and 1840 French naturalist Jules Dumont d’Urville explored the Southwest Pacifi c, claiming Antarctica for France. D’urville’s careful charting of the atolls and reefs in the Pacifi c was immensely valuable for future navigators. NORTH AMERICA AND THE PACIFIC During the last half of the 18th century, European settlers began colonizing Australia, New Zealand, and the major Pacifi c islands. The United States and Canada entered the fray in 1780, establishing trading routes that netted silk, spices, and other products from distant lands. First with whaling ships and later with steamships, explorers traveled the entire Pacifi c Ocean. One of the most notable of those explorers was Alexander MacKenzie, a Scot who emigrated to Montreal, where he became a fur trader. After discovering the MacKenzie River in 1878, this explorer became the fi rst North American to traverse the continent and helped to establish Britain’s claim to the Canadian West. Increased knowledge of the Pacifi c also led to a period of inland exploration in the United States and Canada during the early 19th century. As areas became more settled, there was a push to explore western boundaries and to fi nd more direct routes to areas outside North America. In the early 19th century, France owned most of the land beyond the Mississippi River. In 1803 Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory for around $15,000,000, annexing all land north of Texas and westward toward the Rocky Mountains. The newly purchased area included what is now Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, South Pacific exploration/annexation 319 Dakota, North Dakota, most of Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Montana, most of Minnesota, and part of Colorado. The following year, Jefferson acted on his dream and fi nanced the Lewis and Clark Expedition. On November 7, 1805, the expedition reached the Pacifi c Ocean, completing the charting of the United States from east to west. See also Australia: exploration and settlement; Louisiana Purchase; Manifest Destiny. Further reading: Fagan, Brian M. Clash of Cultures. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira, 1998; Jacobs, Michael. The Painted Voyage: Art, Travel, and Exploration, 1564–1875. London: British Museum Press, 1995; Marquardt, Karl Heinz. Captain Cook’s Endeavour. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995; Roberts, David, ed. Points Unknown: A Century of Great Exploration. New York: Norton, 2000; Wilson, Derek. The Circumnavigators. London: Constable, 1989; Wilson, Kathleen, ed. A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity, and Modernity in Britain and the Empire, 1660– 1840. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Elizabeth Purdy Paine, Thomas (1737–1809) revolutionary journalist and activist Thomas Paine, the English pamphleteer who helped spark the American Revolution and later played a central role in the French Revolution, remains a controversial fi gure, hailed by many as an “Apostle of Freedom” but disparaged by others as a drunken atheist and radical troublemaker. Paine was born in Thetford, an English country town, where his Quaker father, Joseph Pain [sic] was a corset maker. Tom was well read, but his formal education ended at age 13, and his early efforts as teacher, tobacconist, tax collector, and even husband mostly ended in failure. In 1772 Paine met Benjamin Franklin, then Pennsylvania’s colonial representative in London. Armed with letters of introduction, Paine set sail for Philadelphia in October 1774. Although a novice writer, Paine was hired by Pennsylvania Magazine, where his essays boosted the monthly’s circulation. As tensions between Britain and rebellious colonials escalated, Paine began formulating his own long-held ideas of freedom and tyranny, inspired by such Enlightenment fi gures as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense, published in January 1776, was a huge best seller. Written in simple, forceful language and modestly priced, his passionate attack on hereditary monarchy and support of human freedom was read by perhaps a fi fth of all Americans and inspired the Second Continental Congress’s Declaration of Independence that July. As hostilities commenced, Paine wrote The American Crisis, a series of articles intended to bolster patriot resolve. George Washington used Paine’s opening salvo, “These are the times that try men’s souls,” to inspire his poorly equipped troops on the eve of a Christmas Day, 1776, victory. By 1781 Paine was employing his pen to promote French-American alliance and secretly publicizing Washington and other leading Americans to earn desperately needed funds. In 1785 Congress granted Paine $3,000, and New York offi cials deeded him a New Rochelle farm. Always restless, Paine traveled widely in the late 1780s, trying unsuccessfully to fi nance construction of his patented design for a new kind of iron bridge. He also found time to pick political fi ghts with both sworn enemies and allies in the United States, Britain, and Born in England, Thomas Paine was a central fi gure in both the American and French revolutions. 320 Paine, Thomas France. In an outburst of political activism, beginning with his February 1791 publication of Rights of Man, a human rights manifesto, Paine became a principal defender of France’s ongoing revolution. This would result in his 1792 election to the French National Convention, where he arrived in September, steps ahead of an arrest warrant issued by Parliament for “diverse wicked and seditious writings.” Found guilty in absentia, Paine would never again visit his native land. Although he never spoke fl uent French, Paine was acclaimed a national hero by adoring crowds and soon was helping devise a constitution for the new French republic. Meanwhile, as the Terror deepened and thousands fell victim to revenge killings, Paine audaciously opposed plans to execute King Louis XVI of France. In December 1793 he was imprisoned in Luxembourg, a palace-turned-jail, where he would remain under constant threat of execution for 315 days. His health broken by incarceration, Paine nonetheless wrote The Age of Reason, his greatest attack on offi cial religion. Paine returned fi nally to his adopted homeland in 1802, after long-time admirer Thomas Jefferson became president. In his fi nal years, Paine regularly attacked Federalists as opponents of liberty and endured accusations of atheism that alienated him from many old friends. At his death in New York, he was almost as poor as he had been on arriving in America 35 years before. Even after death, this citizen of the world remained notorious. In 1819 an English admirer removed Paine’s bones from his New Rochelle grave. To this day, no one knows where Tom Paine rests. Further reading: Foner, Eric. Tom Paine and Revolutionary America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977; Fruchtman, Jr., Jack. Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1994. Marsha E. Ackermann papal infallibility and Catholic Church doctrine The dogma of papal infallibility was proclaimed at the Vatican I Council in 1870. The council fathers taught that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, that is, as pastor and teacher in an absolute fi nal and irrevocable way concerning faith and morals, he receives the divine assistance that was promised to Peter, the leader of the Twelve Apostles and his successors, and, therefore, speaks infallibly. Such proclamations are “irreformable” of their own nature and not dependent upon the church’s consent. As a dogma, papal infallibility is held to be divinely revealed and binding on all Catholics. This theology was controversial at the time and has not been accepted by non-Catholic churches to this day. Opposition to such a defi nition was strong in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland throughout the 19th century whenever it was proposed for discussion, even among the Catholic bishops. Most of them, however, accepted the teaching and saw it as necessary for the unity of the church. Upon its overwhelming approval in a vote at council on July 18, 1870, the vast majority of opposition among the council fathers ceased and they supported the dogma. Laity in those German-speaking states who could not accept the decision eventually broke away from Rome to form the Old Catholic Church, securing their own apostolic line of authority through orthodox bishops. The Catholic Church teaches that support for papal infallibility may be found both in Scripture and in tradition. Primarily the church looks to Christ’s promise to Peter in Matthew 16:18: “Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Peter’s successors, therefore, lay hold of the same promise. It is not Peter’s faith of which Jesus speaks, but his offi cial position, and, therefore, those who accept the same offi ce are heirs of the promise. In other words, Peter’s authority to defy the gates of hell amounts to the doctrinal and ecclesiastical infallibility that the First Vatican Council recognized. Tradition also indicates that early church fathers such as Clement and Irenaeus were in support of the primacy of Rome. St. Augustine once declared that Rome had replied on the matter “and now the case is closed.” Similar sentiments are refl ected in decisions made by the council fathers at Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople 3 and 4, and later at Florence in 1445. Certain objections that Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius had made errors in their doctrinal statements have never been proven to the satisfaction of many scholars. The Second Vatican Council further addressed the dogma in Lumen Gentium saying: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly.” They are required, however, to maintain unity with Peter’s successor. That authority is manifest when they gather together in council. Traditionally, an infallible pronouncement only occurs in matters of faith and morals and usually when it is clearly understood that the majority of Catholics already agree with the papal position. Such “infallible” pronouncements are not easily or papal infallibility and Catholic Church doctrine 321 frequently made and only after much prayer, refl ection, consultation, and the believed prompting of the Holy Spirit. The most recent infallible statement was made by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, declaring Mary’s assumption into heaven. Further reading: Costigan, Richard F. The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005; McGlory, Robert. Power and Papacy: The People and Politics behind the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Liguori, MO: Triumph, 1997. William J. Turner Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance) One of only a handful of major wars fought among the newly independent nation-states of 19th-century Latin America, the fi ve-year war between landlocked Paraguay and an Argentine-Brazilian-Uruguayan alliance resulted in devastation for Paraguay while transforming the states of the three allies, especially Brazil, in important ways. The roots of the confl ict lay in the territorial ambitions of Brazil and Argentina combined with the recklessness and hubris of Paraguay’s caudillo dictator Francisco Solano López. In September 1864 Brazil sent troops into Uruguay to support the colorados (reds) in their fi ght against the blancos (whites), Uruguay’s two main political parties. Uruguay had been created in 1828, largely through British mediation, as a kind of buffer state between Argentina and Brazil. In response to the Brazilian incursion, Uruguay’s blancos solicited the assistance of Paraguay’s Solano López. The Paraguayan caudillo responded by starting a two-front war, sending troops north into Brazil and southwest into Argentina’s northern interior provinces. Cementing an alliance in early 1865, Brazil and Argentina struck back and were joined by Uruguay in May 1865 after a colorado political takeover. The war, which took place mainly on Paraguayan soil, proved exceptionally destructive. Despite overwhelming odds, the Paraguayan troops fought with great skill and tenacity, infl icting high casualties on the invading forces. The allied armies, fi rst commanded by Argentine president Bartolomé Mitre, then by the seasoned Brazilian military strongman Marshal Caxias (Luiz Alves de Lima), took Paraguay’s capital city of Asunción in December 1868. Still, Solano López fought on, until his own death in battle on March 1, 1870. The belligerents fi nally signed a peace treaty in June 1870. The treaty forced Paraguay to relinquish roughly 40 percent of its national territory (about 140,000 square kilometers, most divided between Argentina and Brazil). It also created a provisional government, inaugurating a prolonged period of political instability in the ravaged and defeated country. For many years, historians estimated Paraguay’s wartime deaths at between half a million and 1 million. More recent scholarship shows a decline from around 407,000 in 1864 to 231,000 in 1872, a death rate of around 43 percent, with only about 28,000 males of military age surviving the confl ict. The war destroyed Paraguay’s isolated protosocialist autocracy forged under the dictatorship of José Rodríguez de Francia, leaving the country not only decimated and impoverished but riven by factional strife. It also destroyed the country’s landowning class, opened the Upper Río de la Plata basin to commerce, and facilitated capitalist expansion into the interior. The war had other important long-term effects for the allied nations, especially Brazil. Two in particular stand out. First, the war brought the issue of slavery to the fore, with many thousands of black Brazilian troops securing their freedom in compensation for military service. In combination with broader antislavery trends in the Atlantic world and the cessation of further slave imports in 1850, the war intensifi ed abolitionist sentiment across the country. The combination of pressures compelled Brazilian emperor Pedro II to support the Law of the Free Womb in 1871, ensuring slavery’s eventual disappearance. Second, the war substantially enlarged the Brazilian army while catapulting into positions of political authority and power a new generation of military offi cers, more modern in outlook and disenchanted with the country’s increasingly archaic political system. Scholars consider Brazil’s fi nal abolition of slavery in 1888 and the fall of its empire in 1889 directly traceable to the social and political changes set in motion by its victory in the Paraguayan War. For Argentina, the war added substantially to the national territory while accelerating the centralization and consolidation of the Buenos Aires–based national state. Smaller in scale but similar in effect were the war’s consequences for Uruguay. Further reading: Lynch, John. “The River Plate Republics from Independence to the Paraguayan War.” The Cambridge History of Latin America, Volume III, From Independence to c. 1870. Leslie Bethell, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge 322 Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance) University Press, 1985; Viotti da Costa, Emilia. The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985; Williams, John Hoyt. The Rise and Fall of the Paraguayan Republic, 1800–1870. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1979. Michael J. Schroeder Paris Commune The Paris Commune was the name given to an uprising that lasted from March 18, 1871, to May 28, 1871. The Commune symbolized for anarchists, socialists, and communists an early 19th-century example of a heroic workers’ revolution. For forces of the Right, the Commune represented rebellion against property, individuals, order, and the state. The Commune arose following France’s defeat, while under the leadership of Napoleon III, in its war with Prussia in 1870–71. The Prussian armies occupied northern France, then surrounded and laid siege to Paris. Led by Louis-Adolphe Thiers, who would later become president of the Third Republic, the French negotiated a peace agreement with the Prussians, and an armistice was signed on February 28, 1871. Following this cease-fi re the French national government moved from Bordeaux to Versailles outside of Paris. Parisians, angered by the defeat, became increasingly defi ant and refused to accept Prussian victory. For Thiers and the national government, their position was impossible without control of Paris. The government needed order and a return to normalcy to build national confi dence. They also required money to pay Prussia indemnities so that Prussian troops would withdraw from French soil. It was in this context that the Commune of Paris was proclaimed on March 18. The Parisian National Guard, or citizen’s militia, which controlled cannons within the city, gave their support to the Communards. Government troops under the command of General Claude Lecomte arrived on March 18 to seize these cannons and suppress any rebellion. Lecomte’s troops refused to fi ght and he and his offi cers were taken prisoner. In turn, 600 barricades were erected throughout the city to resist further attack. The Commune set up offi ces at the Hôtel de Ville, adopted revolutionary red banners, and called for municipal elections. These elections led to the creation of a Commune government on March 28. The Commune leadership numbered 80 to 90 and were young and inexperienced. In addition, the Commune lacked direction and a dominant leader. Its makeup was varied and included old radicals tied to the revolution of 1789, Blanquists (followers of the radical Louis Blanqui), anarchists, and those representing the socialist labor movement. The policies that were enacted were more moderate than radical and included free education, an end to conscription, working-hour restrictions, and unemployment and debt relief. The threat posed by the Commune led the national government on April 2 to end the rebellion. The suburb of Courbevoie was taken and the National Guard’s counterattack on Versailles was handily defeated. The Commune was isolated, and it lacked cohesive leadership; further, the local neighborhoods did not have a citywide plan of defense. On May 21 a gate in the western part of the city was breached, and the government forces began their reconquest of Paris. What followed is known as the la semaine sanglante (the bloody week) as the national army moved from west to east crushing all resistance. At 4:00 on the 28th the last barricade at the rue Ramponeau in Belleville fell to the forces of Marshal Patrice MacMahon, who proclaimed the Commune rebellion over. The suppression of the Commune was bloody and without mercy. Both sides committed atrocities, which led to additional retaliation. Prisoners who survived were often shot. The week of May 21 saw more killed than in the entire Franco-Prussian War or in any previous French massacre. Offi cial estimates are 19,000 Communard deaths against national losses of approximately 1,000. Some have suggested that the death toll in the fi ghting was far higher and closer to 30,000 killed. Another 50,000 were arrested or executed, with 7,000 prisoners exiled to New Caledonia in the Pacifi c. Paris remained under martial law for the next fi ve years. The immediate consequences of the Commune were fear of substantial social reform and a limitation of democratic rights in French society. It created a suspicion among classes that has lasted to the present. For the Left, the Commune became an inspiration for revolutionary change, even though the social agenda of the Commune was hardly revolutionary, and the uprising itself ultimately killed workers and failed to liberate them. Twentieth-century communist propagandists saw the Commune as a useful event for exploitation. See also Second and Third Republics of France; socialism. Paris Commune 323 Further reading: Horne, Alistair. The Terrible Year: The Paris Commune, 1871. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 2004; Leighton, John. Paris Under the Commune. Whitefi sh, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004; Taithe, Bertrand. Citizenship and Wars: France in Turmoil, 1870–1871. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, 2001; Tombs, Robert. The Paris Commune. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 1995; Williams, Roger L., ed. The Commune of Paris, 1871. Indianapolis: Wiley, 1969. Theodore W. Eversole Pedro I (1798–1834) Brazilian ruler Pedro I, or Dom Pedro, was the son of King João VI of Portugal. His family fl ed to the Portuguese colony of Brazil when Napoleon I threatened to invade Portugal in 1808. The arrival of the Braganza (Bragança) family, the royal family of Portugal, in the only major Portuguese colony in South America, created a national identity for Brazilians. João VI ruled both Brazil and Portugal from South America until 1821 and did not want to return to Portugal. He liked Brazil and was afraid another European country would try to seize it if he left to return to Europe. As a father of a future monarch, King João VI was negligent. An unattractive man, he ignored his handsome and high-spirited son. Pedro spent much of his early years in the company of servants in the royal household without parental or other responsible supervision. He received no training for the life that was to be his destiny. In 1821 King João left his son as regent of Brazil and returned to Portugal. José Bonifáco de Andrada e Silva, who had studied in Paris at the time of the French Revolution, became Pedro I’s main adviser. However, the handsome, vivacious, and dishonest Pedro had not been raised to listen to wise advice. Pedro backed the party of Brazilians who advised King João to return to Portugal. When João VI arrived back in Portugal, the Portuguese government began a plan that restricted the sovereign powers of Brazil, returning it to colony status. Pedro I was to be little more than governor of Rio and the southern provinces of Brazil. Although he was irritated by these maneuvers, Pedro hesitated to assert his authority in defi ance of the Portuguese assembly, the Cortes, because he did not want to give up his claim to the throne of Portugal. High-handed orders from the Portuguese government in Lisbon irritated the Brazilians as well as their future ruler, Pedro I. On January 9, 1822, Pedro I refused an order to return to Portugal, saying: “Fico!” (“I shall stay”). Today, January 9th is a holiday in Brazil called Dia Do Fico (I Shall Stay Day). Finally Pedro and the Brazilian party threw Portuguese offi cials out of Rio de Janeiro and other provinces. However, not all Brazilian provinces supported the move toward independence. Pedro made a tour of the provinces to gain support and hired a British admiral to help drive the Portuguese forces out of Brazil. Pedro managed to persuade most Brazilians they would be better off as an independent country. Pedro was popular with members of Brazil’s aristocratic upper class who resented Portuguese-born government offi cials and were glad to see them leave. In September 1822 Pedro declared Brazil’s independence from Portugal and soon after was crowned Emperor Pedro I of Brazil. He convened the fi rst constituent assembly of Brazilians. Meanwhile, José Bonifáco urged Pedro to develop a constitutional monarchy in Brazil. Others in Brazil wanted a traditional monarchy. The new emperor did not wish to lessen his own royal authority. He told the Brazilian assembly he would consider no documents he deemed unworthy. Pedro also appointed many Portuguese-, not Brazilian-, born ministers. Pedro I sent his advisers, including Bonifáco, into exile. The aristocratic party wanted Pedro to separate completely from his royal family in Portugal, and the Portuguese party within Brazil’s commercial classes wanted him to maintain his family ties. In 1824 a new constitution gave Pedro I almost absolute authority. The assembly could be overruled, and Pedro I even decided which papal decrees would be publicized in Brazil. Instability followed in Brazil. A revolt in Recife in the state of Pernambuco created the Confederation of the Equator. Pedro’s forces soon put down this revolt. Portugal recognized Brazilian independence, but Brazil had to repay a loan Portugal took from England. This greatly increased the national debt the Brazilians had to repay. Also, during this year the people in the area that was to become the country of Uruguay with the help of Argentina threw off Brazilian rule and became an independent country. Pedro I, against the Brazilian constitution, claimed the throne of Portugal when João VI died in 1826. The Brazilians saw in this action an attempt once again to make Brazil a colony of Portugal. When Pedro’s wife, Maria Leopoldina, died, 324 Pedro I rumors circulated that Pedro had mistreated her so that he could marry one of his mistresses. Meanwhile in Portugal, Pedro’s brother Miguel had tried to take control from his father. The people of Portugal called for Pedro to return home. Pedro renounced the crown of Portugal, giving it to his daughter, Maria II. Having failed to maintain the loyalty of the people of Brazil, Pedro I abdicated in 1831 and returned to Portugal, leaving his fi ve-year-old son as regent of Brazil. He sailed for Portugal with all the loot he could carry. It was said there was not one silver spoon for Pedro II to use in the entire palace. Pedro I suffered from tuberculosis, and after fi ghting his brother Miguel for the right of his daughter to the throne of Portugal he died in 1834. To some, Emperor Pedro I is regarded as a hero and founder of the nation of Brazil. But others see him merely as a reactionary leader who failed to show initiative in leadership. See also Brazil, independence to republic in. Further reading: Costa, Sergio Correa da. Every Inch a King: A Biography of Dom Pedro I, First Emperor of Brazil. New York: Macmillan, 1950; Fausto, Boris. A Concise History of Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Manchester, Alan K. “The Paradoxical Pedro, First Emperor of Brazil.” Hispanic American Historical Review v. 12/2, 1932; Meade, Teresa A. A Brief History of Brazil. New York, NY: Facts On File, 2003; “Pedro I of Brazil.” Available online. URL: www.historicaltext Accessed December 2006. Nancy Pippen Eckerman Pedro II (1825–1891) Brazilian ruler Emperor Pedro II, or Dom Pedro II, as he was commonly known, was related to most of the royal families of Europe. His father was Pedro I and his mother was Maria Leopoldina of Austria. Ironically, despite his royal pedigree, Pedro II is called the Citizen Emperor of Brazil. On April 7, 1831, fi ve-year-old Pedro II was left by his father with his two younger sisters in Brazil. Pedro I was forced to leave Brazil due the corruption of his government and his desire to remain an heir to the crown of Portuguese throne. He fought his brother Miguel in Portugal to secure the Portuguese crown for his daughter, Maria II, who was Pedro II’s older sister. The fl ight of Pedro I from Brazil left Pedro II with neither father nor mother to guide him. Three regents were to rule for Pedro II until he came of age; he was crowned emperor in 1841. Pedro was calm, serious, and intelligent. He was interested in the study of languages, religion, and science. He studied life in other countries, especially the United States, and began to industrialize Brazil. He created railroads between major cities and had a transatlantic cable placed in Brazil. He encouraged Brazilians to grow coffee. Charles Goodyear’s vulcanization of rubber created another important new export for Brazil. The motto of his reign was “Union and Industry.” Politically, Pedro ruled with care. He alternated the parties in power and listened to advice while maintaining the power of the monarchy. However, Pedro II was caught between the conservative upper class of Brazil and the Brazilian liberals to whom he was more closely allied. Conservatives did not like Pedro’s attempts to do away with slavery in Brazil. Like some slave owners in the United States, Brazil’s elite families could not envision life without slavery. The slave trade was banned in 1850, and gradual emancipation was granted in 1871. In 1888 Pedro II’s daughter signed the act eliminating slavery in Brazil. To replace this manpower, Pedro II encouraged Italians, Poles, and Germans to settle in Brazil. The liberals, on the other hand, found that having an emperor as their champion, no matter how liberal his actions, was a contradiction to liberalism. Pedro II wanted to make education part of every Brazilian’s life. He suggested that instead of erecting a statue of him commemorating his victory in the Paraguayan War, more primary schools should be built. He also refused to allow repairs to the royal palace while there were not enough schools for the children of Brazil. He even said that if he had not been destined to be an emperor, he would have chosen to be a teacher. He traveled to the United States and visited the Philadelphia Exhibition of 1876 and used one of Alexander Graham Bell’s fi rst telephones. He was so impressed that he became the fi rst investor in Bell’s company. Although Pedro II had earned the affection of many of his people, several groups of Brazilians were unwilling to remain under his control. The military that Brazil built up during the Paraguayan War produced offi - cers and soldiers who were not willing to go back to their life in the lower classes of Brazilian society. They Pedro II 325 sought new positions in the power structure of Brazil. The church was upset because Pedro II supported the Masons against several church ordinances. The urban middle class also joined with the military against Pedro II, whom they saw as a tool of the rural landowners. In addition the coffee growers, whom Pedro had always encouraged, joined other dissatisfied groups against the monarch. Despite his popularity among the lower classes, the military forced Pedro II to leave Brazil in 1889. Pedro II left Brazil without bitterness, hoping that Brazil would have a prosperous future. He died in Europe and was buried there. Eventually, his remains and those of his wife were returned to Brazil. See also brazil, independence to republic in; coffee revolution. Further reading: Fausto, Boris. A Concise History of Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Leuchars, Chris. To the Bitter End: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002; Meade, Teresa A. A Brief History of Brazil. New York: Facts On File, 2003. Nancy Pippen Eckerman Perry, Matthew (1794–1858) U.S. naval commander Commodore Matthew Perry of the U.S. Navy was responsible for the opening to Japan. During the late 18th and 19th centuries, European and American commercial interests were directed to the Pacific as Asian countries offered large trading markets. Perry’s actions ended Japan’s policy of isolationism and exposed the inability of the Tokugawa military regime (bakufu) to defend Japan against foreign encroachments. The United States was determined to open up Japan to American trade. In 1853 Matthew Perry arrived in Japan with four warships of the U.S. Navy. His orders were to persuade Japan to establish trading relations with the United States. Perry told the Japanese that he would return to Japan in 1854 to receive their answer. He invited officials to board his warships where they were shown American products as well as the powerful weapons his naval vessels were armed with. The ultimatum from Perry created a debate among Japanese officials; some favored fighting the Americans while others favored compliance. When Perry returned to Japan the following year with eight warships, the Japanese signed an agreement that complied and opened the ports of Hakodate and Shimoda to American trade, promised to treat sailors well, and allowed an American consul to take up residence in Shimoda. The U.S. government followed up by sending Townsend Harris to negotiate trade treaties with the Japanese in August 1856. Harris demanded that Japan establish a fixed low tariff for U.S. imports and that U.S. citizens be granted extraterritorial rights in Japan. These demands created another debate in Japanese political circles between members of the emperor’s court and the bakufu, which favored compliance because the French and British fleets had just defeated the Chinese in the Arrow War and were rumored to be traveling to Japan to force the Japanese to accede to their demands. Thus they wished to placate the Western powers. A treaty was signed in 1858 that allowed Americans to trade at three more ports, with an additional two ports to be opened within a A progressive leader who helped modernize Brazil, Pedro II was exiled by forces allied against his reforms. 326 Perry, Matthew stipulated time. These privileges were soon extended to England, France, the Netherlands, and Russia in similar agreements. The government was severely criticized for allowing Japan to be humiliated by the Western powers. Critics advocated a stronger leadership loyal to the emperor and committed to repel Western encroachments. A slogan, “Honor the emperor, expel the barbarian,” became a popular rallying cry. Two feudal lords of Choshu and Satsuma especially denounced the Tokugawa Shogunate as too weak to handle the problems affl icting Japan and led the movement to change Japan. In 1868 these two regional lords, who had undertaken to modernize their armies, led a successful uprising that captured Edo, seat of the shogun. It ended the Tokugawa Shogunate and resulted in the Meiji Restoration. Further reading: Beasley, William. Japan Encounters the Barbarians: Japanese Travellers in America and Europe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995; ———. The Rise of Modern Japan. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990; Hane Mikiso. Modern Japan: A Historical Survey. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992; Murphey, Rhoads. East Asia: A New History. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 1997; Walworth, Arthur. Black Ships off Japan: The Story of Commodore Perry’s Expedition. North Haven, CT: Archon Books, 1966. Brian de Ruiter Pius IX (1792–1878) pope Pope Pius IX was born Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti at Sinigaglia on May 13, 1792, and died in Rome on February 7, 1878. As a young man, he desired to be a member of the papal noble guard, but was refused admission because he suffered from epilepsy. He instead studied for the priesthood and was ordained a priest in 1819 and archbishop of Spoleto in 1827. He was moved to the diocese of Imola and made a cardinal in 1840. Mastai-Ferretti was elected pope on June 16, 1846. He had many domestic challenges in Italy that occupied his early papacy. King Victor Emmanuel II defeated the papal army in 1860 and 10 years later seized Rome and made it the capital city of a united Italy. Problems with most of the nations of Europe compelled Pius IX to use diplomacy to fi ght against the expulsion of Catholic clergy and a general feeling of anti-Catholicism throughout the continent. His lifelong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary compelled him to circulate letters to the world’s bishops in regard to the subject of her immaculate conception. On December 8, 1854, he promulgated the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. He convoked the Vatican I Council, which declared the dogma of papal infallibility that establishes that the pope, when speaking on matters of faith and morals, is infallible in his teachings. At 32 years, his pontifi cate is the longest in history. He was beatifi ed on September 3, 2000, by Pope John Paul II. Further reading: Chadwick, Owen. A History of the Popes, 1830–1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003; 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. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; Reardon, Wendy J. The Deaths of the Popes: Comprehensive Pius IX 327 Pope Pius IX convened the Vatican I Council and was the fi rst to declare the dogma of papal infallibility. Accounts, Including Funerals, Burial Places, and Epitaphs. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2004. James Russell Poland, partitions of The three partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which took place in 1772, 1793, and 1795 resulted in the end of independent Poland and the incorporation of its lands into Prussia, Russia, and Habsburg Austria. In the early 18th century, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was undermined by various European powers, especially through the Polish parliament, the Sejm, where a single member could exercise the right of veto and block any measures being introduced by the body. This had allowed the commonwealth to remain neutral during the Seven Years’ War (1756– 63), although it sympathized with France and Austria, allowing Russian soldiers to cross its territory to fight the Prussians after Russia entered the war as an ally of the French and Austrians. At the end of the war, Frederick the Great of Prussia wrecked the Polish economy and sought to undermine the country. In 1768 the Russians were involved in fighting the Ottoman Empire and won such easy victories over the Ottomans that the Austrians were nervous that the victorious Russians might attack them. Frederick II decided to refocus the Russian attentions on Poland. On February 6, 1772, representatives of the Prussian and Russian governments, meeting at St. Petersburg, the Russian capital, decided to annex large parts of Poland, with the agreement of partition signed 13 days later in Vienna, and the Austrian government also gaining part of the country. The annexation took place on August 5, 1772. Some parts of Poland resisted with Tyniec holding out until March 1773 and Kraków falling on April 28—the garrison of the latter being exiled to Siberia. Essentially the result of the partition was that the Austrians took over areas around Kraków and Sandomir (but not Kraków itself), as well as Galicia. The Prussians took the area around Danzig(Gdan´sk) and areas of western Prussia, along with control of some 80 percent of the total pre-partition foreign trade; with the Russians annexing the parts of Livonia they had not already seized, as well as Vitebsk, Polotsk, and Mstislavl, in modern-day Belarus. The Polish sejm was forced to accept the partition, which it did on September 30, 1773. The Poles had hoped to get the support of Britain and/or France, but their plans came to nothing. The new Polish government, having lost large amounts of territory and most of its foreign revenue base, signed the Polish-Prussian Pact of 1790. This effectively allowed the next partition to take place and when the new Polish Constitution of 1791 enfranchised much of the middle class, the Russians were angry and regarded the action as aggressive, coming so soon after the French Revolution. On January 23, 1793, the Second Partition took place with Prussia and Russia seizing more land—the former taking Danzig. The Poles under Tadeusz Kos´ciuszko led an uprising that lasted from March until October 1794. This forced the Russians and the Prussians into a closer military alliance, and they decided, along with Austria, that it was easier to annex the remainder of Poland. This was achieved on October 24, 1795, when the Third Partition took place, ending Poland’s independence. Napoleon I tried to restore Poland during the Napoleonic Wars, forming the Duchy of Warsaw, but as he started losing, the entity was dismembered and the lands of the three partitions were returned to Austria, Prussia, and Russia, respectively, formed into the republic of Kraków, the Grand Duchy of Posen, and the Kingdom of Poland. Poland did not regain its independence until after World War I. Further reading: Eversley, Lord. The Partitions of Poland. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1910; Lukowski, Jerry. The Partitions of Poland: 1772, 1793, 1795. London: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998; Sorel, Albert. The Eastern Question in the Eighteenth Century: The Partition of Poland and the Treaty of Kainardiji. New York: H. Fertig, 1969. Justin Corfield Polish revolutions The central European nation of Poland spent much of its history between the 17th and 20th centuries struggling for the right to exist as an independent nation. Yet, throughout this period, the rebellious spirit of the Polish people was never completely eradicated. In a series of agreements negotiated in the late 18th century, the neighboring nations of Russia, Prussia, and Austria partitioned Poland, with each country adding parts of 328 Poland, partitions of the country to its own territory. It was not until 1918, at the end of World War I, that Poland established its own independence, only to be invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union during World War II. After the war, Poland became a Soviet satellite, although it was more tolerantly governed than was common. The Solidarity movement of the 1980s paved the basis for a turn toward democracy in the 1990s when the Soviet bloc was dissolved. In 1807 France created the Duchy of Warsaw out of land it had taken from Prussia and enlarged the territory in 1809 by taking land from Austria. However, French expansion into Polish territories was halted in 1815 by the defeat of the French in the Napoleonic Wars. As part of the war spoils set out in the Treaty of Venice, Russia was granted control of the Kingdom of Poland. Initially, Czar Nicholas I allowed Poland to exist in a semiautonomous state. However, in 1830, he made the decision to call up the Polish army to assist in his efforts to halt the move toward democratization in Belgium and France. His actions gave rise to a new wave of Polish nationalism, and a newly awakened sense of rebellion led to the first Polish revolution. The revolution was in large part a response to the French and Belgian revolutions and to the emergence of democratic socialism in Poland. Hostilities began on the night of November 29, 1830, when a group of civilians attacked Belweder Palace. Their aim was to kill the first viceroy of Poland, the Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich Romanov. Constantine was the grandson of Catherine the Great of Russia. Ironically, Constantine had organized the Polish army and was a strong supporter of the Poles. He considered himself more Polish than Russian and had married a Pole, Johanna Grudzinska, in May 1820. In the confusion that accompanied the attack, Constantine managed to escape. Because he was hesitant to attack those whom he considered his own people, he refused to order his troops to counterattack. Simultaneously with the attack on the palace, cadets from Warsaw Military College overwhelmed Russian forces along the Austrian and Prussian borders. The cadets captured a number of generals, executing those who refused to join the revolutionary movement. The revolution gained strength as it spread to Lithuania, where the revolt was spearheaded by Emilia Plater. Plater, who died a heroine, was representative of the many women who took up arms to fight for Polish independence. Convinced that victory was within their grasp, the revolutionary government expelled Russian garrisons, deposed the Romanov dynasty, and established its own government. Ultimately, Russian forces, which initially outnumbered the Polish forces 10 to one, overwhelmed the Poles and Liths who were weakened by indecisive military leaders, and recaptured Warsaw in September 1831. Without mercy, Russia apprehended more than 25,000 prisoners and exiled them to Siberia. The leader of Polish romanticism, poet Adam Mickiewicz, was one of those sent into exile. Although he was not exiled, the composer Frédéric Chopin left Poland at this time but continued to express his despair over the Polish situation in his musical compositions. After the war, the czar began the Russification of Poland with the intention of eradicating any remaining tendencies toward Polish nationalism. He was unsuccessful, however, and only caused Polish rebels to go underground as they waited for a new opportunity to rid themselves of the Russian invaders. A subsequent uprising in 1846 in the Free City of Kraków and in those cities along the Austrian border was halted by the quick and brutal action of Austria and her allies. When Alexander II ascended to power in Russia in 1855, he exhibited more tolerance toward Poland and reinstated the semiautonomous state that had existed before the first revolution. While the majority of the Polish people were delighted to regain some of the ground that had been lost, revolutionary groups stepped up their efforts to incite rebellion. When the government attempted to draft the rebels into the army, insurrections broke out in January 1863 and again spread into Lithuania and into what was known as White Russia. This conspiracy that developed into the second Polish revolution originated at the School of Fine Arts and the Medical Surgical Academy in Warsaw in 1861. Most revolutionaries split along ideological lines into the radical Reds who seized control of the revolution through the Central National Committee and the more moderate Whites. Members of the Whites, generally the landowning and bourgeoisie classes, saw alliances with Britain and France as more likely avenues toward eventual independence than taking up arms against the powerful Russian government and military. Splinter groups also surfaced. When the revolt began, Poland was operating without an organized army and was forced to depend on guerrilla fighters to engage Russian forces. By the mid-19th century, the Kingdom of Poland had become home to large numbers of Ukrainian peasants who did not share the Polish desire for Polish revolutions 329 independence. This lack of unity within Poland provided Russia with excellent opportunities to undercut Polish efforts toward independence. Among the Polish population, participation was widespread. Out of a population of some 4 million people, an estimated 200,000 individuals took up arms at some point in the second Polish revolution. When Russian forces prevailed in May 1864, the czar was determined to wipe out all elements of Polish nationalism. Once the Russian administration was entrenched in Poland, all Polish children were required to learn Russian. The Roman Catholic Church, which was seen as instrumental in keeping Polish nationalism alive, came under close scrutiny. In order to exert its right to control Poland, the czar also confi scated a good deal of land and curtailed Polish autonomy. Even though the Poles had been defeated, the desire for independence had been roused in many young people, particularly university students. It was those individuals who kept Polish nationalism alive during the following decades. See also Balkan and East European insurrections. Further reading: Biskupski, Mieczyslaw B. The History of Poland. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000; Davies, Norman. Heart of Europe: The Past in Poland’s Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; Leslie, R. F., ed. The History of Poland Since 1863. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980; Naimark, Norman M. The History of the “Proletariat”: The Emergence of Marxism in the Kingdom of Poland, 1870–1887. New York: Colombia University Press, 1979. Elizabeth Purdy political parties in Canada As the British Empire regrouped after the shock of losing 13 of its North American colonies in the American Revolution, Canadian politics began to evolve from rudimentary local and regional councils almost entirely dominated by royal governors-general and their lieutenants to genuinely competitive political parties that contested specifi cally Canadian problems and issues. At the outset, Canadian politicians identifi ed themselves as Tories or Whigs, in emulation of Britain’s parliamentary division of the late 18th and 19th centuries. Canada’s Colonial Offi ce and its royal governors worked closely with members of local or provincial ruling elites who had the most to gain by toeing the imperial line. Religious leaders (including Roman Catholics in French Canada and Church of England clerics in Ontario) and wealthy merchants were often part of this Tory oligarchy. After Britain’s War of 1812 with the United States, during which Canada survived American invasion, new voices of political reform began to emerge in opposition to this decidedly nonrepresentative system of power. French-Canadian Louis-Joseph Papineau, a lawyer and French nationalist, in 1815 was elected speaker of the Lower Canada assembly, in defi ance of the Chateau Clique’s previous stranglehold on that body. This was an early indication that British governors were losing their ability to shape and manage local legislatures. In Upper Canada, businessman turned journalist William Lyon Mackenzie put forth a strong reform agenda and collaborated with Papineau. Despite having his presses smashed by Tory opponents, by 1828 Mackenzie, an admirer of the U.S. political system and its incoming president, Andrew Jackson, won a seat and joined a new reform majority in Upper Canada’s assembly. The reformers were poorly organized and faced powerful opposition. The so-called Family Compact—Tory leaders in Upper Canada supported by the British governor and Colonial Offi ce—blocked reform proposals targeting patronage and tax policies, and, by 1831, had regained control. Even though Britain’s Whigs managed in 1832 to implement major electoral reforms at home, Canadian reformers still despaired of change without radical action. For Canada, the 1830s were a period of political confusion and rising confl ict, culminating in the Rebellion of 1837. It was a year of desperation, caused largely by crop failures and a serious economic depression affl icting both Canada and the United States. In Québec, Papineau seemed to incite his supporters to boycott British trade and adopt some American political practices. Mackenzie encouraged farmers to rally in Toronto to overthrow the existing Ontario government. British-led troops put down both schemes with minimal bloodshed but almost 100 arrests and several executions; both Papineau and Mackenzie fl ed temporarily to the United States. Militarily the uprisings were a fi asco, but they caused Britain to look much more seriously at Canadian unrest and its potential threat to Britain’s colonial system. In 1838 John Lambton, earl of Durham, was sent by London’s Whig government to restore order and recommend new political arrangements that would ultimately establish Canadian self-government. Lord Durham’s groundbreaking Report on 330 political parties in Canada the Affairs of British North America did not instantly solve Canada’s political malaise but helped Canadian politicians plan strategies for local self-rule. Most immediately, the Durham Report paved the way for a single legislative assembly for what was now called the Province of Canada, in which both Upper and Lower Canada were equally represented. This move strengthened the importance of the two most populous regions of Canada, but also raised new concerns about French versus English political power: issues that have continued to roil Canadian politics. New sectional and ideological parties began to appear in the 1840s and ’50s, as Canadians extended their autonomy. In Québec, a new Parti Rouge espoused French cultural supremacy while attacking its own Catholic clergy. Canadians in the growing western region, feeling underrepresented by traditional politics back east, in the 1850s formed the Clear Grit Party that focused on agrarian interests, free trade, and more democratic voting rights. It took a young politician from Kingston, Ontario, John A. Macdonald, to revitalize Upper Canada’s hidebound Tory tradition by accepting moderate reform and reaching out across the English-French cultural, religious, and political divide. Soon Macdonald’s new Liberal- Conservative party was winning elections with its French partner, Parti Bleu. With the coming of Canadian Confederation, the Liberal-Conservatives governed Canada from 1867 to 1896, except for 1874–78 when the Reform, or Liberal Party, headed by Alexander Mackenzie won control of Parliament. A Scottish-born stone mason not related to William Lyon Mackenzie, Alexander Mackenzie benefi ted from a Pacifi c railway bribery scandal that forced Macdonald’s resignation. During their tenure, the Liberals created the Canadian Supreme Court and instituted the secret ballot, among other electoral reforms. Winning support almost exclusively in Ontario, the Liberal party lost badly in the 1878 general election. Not until Wilfrid Laurier became his party’s leader and, in 1896, Canada’s fi rst French-Canadian prime minister, would the Liberal party truly become a competitive Canadian political institution. See also political parties in the United States. Further reading: Christian, William, and Colin Campbell. Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada, 3rd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1990; Verney, Douglas V. Three Civilizations, Two Cultures, One State: Canada’s Political Traditions. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986. Marsha E. Ackermann political parties in the United States From the nation’s earliest days U.S. leaders struggled over how to deal effectively with political disagreements. Many Americans feared that faction—what today would be called special interests—would distort the new republic, setting citizens against one another and encouraging attacks by hostile foreign powers. In April 1789 George Washington, elected unanimously, became America’s fi rst president. Within months, sharply opposed political coalitions were arguing inside Washington’s own cabinet. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton had founded the Federalist Party, reclaiming the name given supporters of the Constitution. In 1792 Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson organized the Democratic-Republican Party, completing what came to be called the fi rst party system. Federalists and Republicans (as Jefferson’s party soon called itself) had very different views of America’s future. Would it be an agricultural nation or a commercial and industrial power? Should individual states exercise power or the federal government prevail? Was France or Britain America’s trusted ally? Partisan newspapers criticized even Washington; his successor, John Adams, the fi rst and only Federalist president, faced harsher attacks for his Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson won the vicious 1800 election, outpolling fellow Republican Aaron Burr and three Federalists, including Adams. One result of this political shakeup was the Twelfth Amendment, ratifi ed in 1804 to fi x a constitutional defect. Instead of making the electoral runner-up vice president, whether or not he shared the president’s views or even his political party, candidates would now run as a slate. This change elevated the importance of party over individual ambition. Hamilton’s death in an 1804 duel with Vice President Burr cost the Federalist Party its most dynamic leader, accelerating its decline despite continuing strength in New England. Federalist opposition to the War of 1812 was decried as treason by political foes. The last Federalist ran (and lost) in 1816. FADING PARTISANSHIP During Republican James Monroe’s two terms, partisanship briefl y seemed to fade. In fact, the Republican Party was splitting internally between national Republicans and states-rights Republicans. Monroe’s Era of Good Feeling evaporated in 1824, when four political parties in the United States 331 candidates, all nominally Republican, vied for the presidency. Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, a statesrights Republican, won a plurality of the popular vote but lost the election when national Republican rival Henry Clay transferred his votes to John Quincy Adams, son of the second president. Jackson supporters never forgave this “corrupt bargain.” When Jackson won easily in 1828, he became the fi rst president not from Massachusetts or Virginia. His victory initiated the second party system. Jacksonians in 1844 renamed themselves the Democratic Party and benefi ted from the growth of universal white male suffrage. Among Jackson’s innovations was patronage—awarding jobs and favors to supporters to cement their party loyalty. Democrats also pioneered national political conventions. Clay’s national Republicans in 1834 reinvented themselves as Whigs, named for the British political party that had backed the American Revolution. Whigs favored national improvements, the Bank of the United States, proindustrial policies, and middleclass values. Clay never achieved his presidential dream. Only two Whigs were elected president, despite campaign strategies (borrowed by rivals) that signifi cantly increased voter turnout. The 1840 William Henry Harrison campaign included marches, bonfi res, and copious helpings of hard cider. Whigs even encouraged women (who could not vote) to attend campaign events. War of 1812 hero Harrison, the fi rst Whig president, became ill at his inauguration and died shortly thereafter. DISSIDENT THIRD PARTIES Although the U.S. political system has historically generated success for only two major parties, in the 1830s, dissident third parties began to tackle major issues, including growing opposition to slavery and southern political power and increasing immigration. In 1844 James G. Birney, a slaveholder turned abolitionist, was the Liberty Party’s presidential nominee. In 1848 amid sharp regional divisions caused by the Mexican-American War, former president Martin Van Buren campaigned for the Free-Soil Party. As politics in the 1850s fractured along sectional lines, the new American, or “Know-Nothing,” Party, founded in 1849 in New York, became a major factor in the Whigs’ demise as a functional political organization. Nativist, secretive, and anti-Catholic, Know-Nothings were strong in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, even attracting some slave-state voters. Former president Millard Fillmore in 1856 won 22 percent of the vote for the Know-Nothings. Thirdparty success explains more about the political chaos of the 1850s than it does about campaign skill. Amid a series of failed compromises, growing distrust between North and South splintered any political party hoping to appeal to both sections. Whigs fi elded their last presidential candidate in 1852. Northern Whigs joined Free Soilers and antislavery Democrats and Know- Nothings to create a new Republican Party (not to be confused with the party by then known as Democrats). Former Whig Abraham Lincoln became the nation’s fi rst Republican president in a four-way race. Democrats remained strong in the North during the Civil War. Those nicknamed Copperheads were especially critical of Republican leadership. To aid his 1864 reelection, Lincoln chose a Democratic running mate—Senator Andrew Johnson, a Tennessean who had refused to secede. Nor did Republicans always support their president. The radical wing of the party complained that Lincoln was too slow to end slavery. Other Republicans preferred to focus on postwar reunifi cation and their northern war party’s future. The Reconstruction began shakily after Lincoln’s assassination as now-President Johnson struggled with radical Republicans for political domination. Although Republicans would win six of eight presidential elections between 1865 and 1900, their commitment to Reconstruction and reform wavered. Boss politics held sway in many American cities. Ulysses S. Grant’s administration was riddled by corruption, undercutting his ability to protect African-American voting rights. In 1877 deals made after the closest election in U.S. history (prior to 2000) put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in offi ce with a tacit promise to leave the former Confederacy alone. With white-dominated southerners voting solidly Democratic and Congress narrowly split, the nation experienced a politics of dead center. Amid Gilded Age inertia, new third parties emerged. In its fi rst presidential campaign in 1872, the Prohibition Party attracted many female Temperance advocates to its crusade against alcoholic beverages. The Greenback- Labor Party, founded in 1878, focused on farmer debt relief and worker rights. Populists in 1892 carried four western states and parts of two others. In 1896 Democratic presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan appropriated much of the populist agenda but lost to William McKinley. See also newspapers, North American; political parties in Canada. 332 political parties in the United States Further reading: Altschuler, Glenn C., and Stuart M. Blumin. Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000; Holt, Michael F. Political Parties and American Political Development from the Age of Jackson to the Age of Lincoln. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1992; Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. History of U.S. Political Parties. New York: Chelsea House, 1973. Marsha E. Ackermann prazeros The prazeros arose from Portuguese expansion in the late 15th century. Operating from the mercantile principle that wealth equals power, the Portuguese concentrated on a search for precious metals, especially gold and silver. After Vasco da Gama sailed from Portugal to India in 1498, Portugal sought to gain control of the gold trade in East Africa. Before this time the Swahili city-states located between what is now Somalia and Mozambique had acted as intermediaries for the output of the gold mines of the Shona empire of Monomutapa, which is located in what is now eastern Zimbabwe and western Mozambique. Portugal seized the Swahili city-states between 1506 and 1512 and, although the northern city-states slipped out of their control between 1648 and 1729, maintained control of the southern city-states, especially Sofala. By the mid-17th century Portugal, a relatively small country of perhaps 1 million, decided to maintain some degree of control through the prazero system in its African territories. Concentrated in Mozambique, the hinterland of Sofala and the site of some of the goldfields, the prazero system was to last until approximately 1940 and, in part, reflected the lack of firm Portuguese control in its overseas African colonies. prazeros 333 The prazeros were Portuguese landholders in East Africa. This system enabled the Portuguese to continue to export large amounts of precious metals from Africa, allowing the relatively small Portugal to maintain its empire on an equal footing with larger nations. The prazeros, holders of leases from the Portuguese Crown, were similar to the holders of the latifundia in Latin America but held a larger number. In practice, they were basically independent from 1650 to 1900. Nominally required to defend Portuguese interests, they also derived rights from the loosely organized Shona states of Monomutapa and its successors. By 1700 they were functioning as local African leaders. They had taken African wives, although they continued to emphasize their Portuguese roots by sending their wives and children to Portuguese schools. By 1800 the prazeros were more or less African-Portuguese and were actively engaged in the local slave trade. At the height of slave trading in Mozambique, the prazeros dominated trade and were involved in the export of perhaps 15,000 slaves per year. The beginning of the end of the prazeros as a privileged class arose from two factors between 1850 and 1890, the abolition of slavery and the scramble for Africa, which endangered Portugal’s position in Africa. The latter directly affected the economic base when Great Britain, in order to forestall the German attempt to connect German Southwest Africa (now Namibia) and German East Africa (now Tanzania), occupied the major goldfi elds of the Shona states. The fi nal end of prazero power came between 1880 and 1914 when Portugal sought to reassert control in its attempt to preempt British and German ambitions. Europeans were anxious to use African labor, materials, and markets for their increasing factory production. When the Portuguese embarked upon the reassertion of their authority in the Zambezi Valley, they utilized three chartered companies, particularly the British-controlled Zambezia Company, which controlled labor and markets and expanded Portuguese control indirectly by, along with the other companies, establishing military posts and building roads, ports, and the transterritorial railroad. Labor was mobilized to work on the newly developed plantations, especially in cotton and sugar, which were exported through the port of Beira. In the process most holdings of the prazero class were absorbed by the companies. By 1940 the prazeros had virtually disappeared as a dominant class. Further reading: Bhila, Hoyni H. K. Trade and Politics in a Shona Kingdom. Harlow: Longman, 1982; Boxer, Charles. Race Relations in the Portuguese Colonial Empire, 1415– 1825. New York: Penguin Books, 1973; Isaacman, Allen, and Barbara Isaacman. Mozambique: From Colonialism to Revolution. Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House, 1983. Norman C. Rothman public education in North America Public education has undergone a process of signifi - cant change because of religion, politics, economics, and immigration. The limited educational system in America led the fi rst settlers, beginning in the New England colonies to push for an educational system similar to that of England. The northern, middle, and southern colonies thought about education differently. An organized and cohesive educational system was needed from the colonial period through the Industrial Revolution, in order to better the country as a whole. THE COLONIES In the northern colonies of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the fi rst colonial textbooks and required reading in schools started with Benjamin Harris’s New England Primer of 1690, published in Boston. The fi rst primer became required reading in both school and church and was used into the 19th century. It was a combination of the hornbook (paddle-shaped boards with paper attached used to teach children capital and lowercase letters, syllables, the benedictions, and prayers) and catechism. The idea behind the primer was that it provided a combination of religion and learning so that students would gain salvation as well as knowledge. The fi rst public schools began in Massachusetts and eventually arose in most of the other northern colonies. Education in the north was predominately sponsored and supported by Puritans who fostered the teaching of their beliefs. Dorchester, Massachusetts, established the fi rst public school, Boston Latin School, funded by state taxes. By 1750 mandates were set in place for children who did not attend public schools to learn a trade under an apprenticeship. The Massachusetts Bay Colony also required towns to set up schools, depending on their size; one elementary school in towns of 50 families or more and one grammar school in towns of 100 families or more. The other northern colonies followed with similar laws, except Rhode Island. The fi rst state board of 334 public education in North America education was established in Massachusetts in 1837. In Boston the integration of African Americans into public schools occurred in 1885. Horace Mann was the fi rst secretary of state for Massachusetts’s fi rst board of education. During his tenure he made vast developments for education— schools to train teachers, free public libraries, state aid for schools, public education supported through taxation, education mandates for every child, and secular education not supported through taxation. Efforts to establish state boards of education throughout the colonies began to spread. The middle colonies—Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York—approached education more slowly than the north. By 1750 a child was required to be able to read and write by age 12, enforceable with a £5 fi ne. The Quakers founded the Friends Public School in Philadelphia, now the William Penn Charter School, to assist in educating children. Those who were interested could attend an academy to seek further education. In 1753 Benjamin Franklin chartered a nonsecular academy in Philadelphia, which eventually became the University of Pennsylvania. Academy attendance varied depending on the school; while some schools only attracted local students, others had students from many areas. In 1834 a state-funded public system for education was set into place. Around 1840 state public education began to develop, stretching from Connecticut to Illinois, but the southern states were a bit behind. Several factors contributed to the slow development of public education in the South. First, the south was less populous than the North. For about 100 years in Virginia, free schools had already been established, but public education did not become common in the south until after the Civil War. Puritan New England emphasized educating students about religion in the classroom, while in the south members of the Anglican Church saw education and religion as separate. The southern elite also took in private tutors from Europe or sent their children to England to seek an education; private tutors and education in the home were commonplace throughout the colonies. Public education also posed a threat to whites; the potential existed for slaves to become literate and gain enough knowledge to organize and revolt. It was punishable by law to teach a slave to read or write. When African Americans were educated, it was usually with the help of Anglicans, Quakers, or other religious groups. In the early part of the 18th century, French immigrant and minister Elias Neau opened the fi rst school for blacks. In 1782 Quakers also founded the Philadelphia African School, which was a free school. In the early part of the 18th century, other religious groups sought to educate African Americans as well as other poor Americans. IMPACT OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Education in North America continued to evolve during the Industrial Revolution, which lasted from the late 18th through the early 20th century. Children often worked as cheap labor under precarious conditions. There was nothing to regulate these conditions where children were viewed as miniature adults, capable of providing for themselves and their families. During this period, there was a rise in the growth of the middle class. From this middle class emerged reformers who pioneered the idea that childhood constituted a separate stage of development from adulthood and needed to be treated as such. Part of this treatment included education and leisure time. During the early part of the Industrial Revolution, compulsory education was designed for work, whether in the factories or on the land, and geared toward factory work and labor. The compulsory education of early schools eventually had students who were several years apart in grade and age in one room. Students would be taught the same lessons but the instruction was differentiated and modifi ed based upon the students’s learning needs, ability, and learning style. In early colonial America, students wanting a university education had to travel to England to attend Cambridge or Oxford, which could be unsafe and expensive. It became imperative to establish a university system of education, much like the universities the fi rst settlers had attended before arriving in the colonies. With several colleges founded during the early colonial period—Harvard in 1636, College of William and Mary in 1693, and Yale University in 1701—the trend toward post–secondary education continued from the mid-18th century to the 1900s. Columbia University was fi rst chartered as King’s College in 1754, and Dartmouth was founded in 1769. By the end of the 18th century, there were more than 350 colleges in North America. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE During the 1830s there was an infl ux of immigrants to North America, and by the middle of the 19th century over half of the urban populations were immigrants. public education in North America 335 Many foreigners were attracted to New York and New Orleans with new industrialization and economic opportunity. Many issues began to arise in both the North and South around Catholic education, which led Governor William H. Seward and Bishop John Hughes of the New York diocese to become involved. At the time, the principles of Protestantism dominated North American society. Consequently, little progress was made in enabling Catholics to attend Protestant schools, ultimately leading to private Catholic education. The private Catholic school system developed because schools only received state funding if they incorporated Protestant teachings into their curricula. Catholics refused to have their children attend Protestant schools because they used the King James translation of the Bible, a Protestant translation undertaken during the 17th century. If Catholics were to attend public schools they would have to follow Protestantism within the school, and Catholics were afraid of losing support from the Catholic Church if they did so. Catholics eventually gained permission to open their own schools, which were not funded through state aid or taxation. SPREAD OF STATE-FUNDED EDUCATION With the infl ux of poor immigrants to the colonies, kindergarten was started to instill the basic social needs of children between the ages of three and seven. In 1890 junior high schools began opening with the purpose of preparing students for high school by distinguishing their needs and determining what they would pursue when they went to high school. Many educational developments were impeded during the mid-18th century up through the early 20th century because of cultural, 336 public education in North America In British North America, educational institutions fi rst developed in the northern colonies, where the fi rst colonial textbooks were used in schools, starting with Benjamin Harris’s New England Primer of 1690, published in Boston. religious, and economic differences in American society. The need for public education could not be ignored if North America wanted to have unity and prosperity, both in its economic and social conditions. See also Lincoln, Abraham; Madison, James. Further reading: Compayri, Gabriel, and Mary D. Frost. Horace Mann and the Public School in the United States. Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacifi c, 2002; Lucas, Christopher J. American Higher Education: A History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996; Monaghan, Jennifer E. Learning to Read and Write in Colonial America. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005; Reese, William J. America’s Public Schools: From the Common School to “No Child Left Behind.” Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. Nicole J. DeCarlo public education in North America 337

339 Qajar dynasty After ruling much of what is now Iran since 1501, the Safavid Empire was largely destroyed and occupied by invading Afghan tribes, who captured the imperial capital of Isfahan in 1722. Two years later, subsequent invasions by the Ottoman Empire and the Russians effectively ended centralized Safavid rule and ushered in a period of tribal conquest throughout the region. The Afshars under Nadir Khan conducted a series of brilliant military campaigns that drove the Ottomans and the Afghans out of Iran and led to the recapture of the cities of Mashhad, Isfahan, and Shiraz and the capture of the city of Herat in western Afghanistan between 1726 and 1729. In 1736 Nadir deposed the last Safavid shah, Abbas III, and declared himself shah, ruling until his assassination in 1747 by members of his own court. The Zand tribe, under its leader, Karim Zand Khan, replaced the Afshar tribal polity in 1750 and ruled much of Iran from their capital city of Shiraz. During Karim’s lengthy reign, which lasted until his death in 1779, Iran enjoyed over a quarter century of relative peace and prosperity. However, a dynastic civil war severely weakened Zand power following Karim’s death and led to the dynasty’s overthrow by the Turcoman tribal leader Agha Muhammad Khan and the establishment of the Qajar dynasty with Tehran as its capital in 1786. Under Karim, Agha Muhammad had been imprisoned in Shiraz by the Zand tribe, though many sources suggest that he was relatively well treated and even consulted by Karim on issues of governance. After Karim’s death, he escaped from Shiraz and went to Mazandaran, where he fought other tribes for supremacy until 1786 when Qajar forces captured much of northern Iran. Over the next several years, Agha Muhammad solidifi ed and expanded his territorial holdings, occupying the old Safavid capital of Isfahan in 1787 and leading campaigns to subjugate Azerbaijan in 1791. In 1795 Qajar forces entered Georgia, which had once been a client state of the Safavids, after its ruler, Heraclius, refused to begin paying tribute to them, and sacked the city of Tifl is. The next year Agha Muhammad was crowned the ruler of much of Iran. He spent the remainder of his reign in the fi eld with his army, campaigning to assert Qajar authority over the province of Khurasan and fending off attacks from the Russian Empire. While in Georgia, Agha Muhammad was murdered on June 17, 1797, by two slaves who had been sentenced to death for some minor infraction. Under him, the central government in Tehran was tenuous and the importance of tribal affi liations, both within the Qajar tribe and Iran’s other tribal groups, remained an important aspect of political life. The bureaucracy that would coalesce later in the Qajar period was not yet formed, and Agha Muhammad relied on a rather decentralized government apparatus to rule his fl edgling state. Upon the death of the fi rst Qajar monarch, Agha Muhammad’s nephew, Fath Ali Shah, the governor of the province of Fars, assumed the throne. Under its new ruler, who had been trained in the art of politics while in Q his previous post, the Qajar dynasty began to shift from a tribal polity into a more centralized state. Fath Ali, unlike his uncle, was a great patron of scholarship and art, and it was under him that the administrative structures of government were refi ned. Iran’s other tribes were kept in check because many of their leaders were required to reside in Tehran, and the Qajars frequently attempted to sow rumors among them in order to prevent alliances from forming that might endanger their control of the country. The Qajar administration was run by a new class of bureaucrats, the mirzas, and the support, or at least acquiescence, of Iran’s Shi‘i clergy, the ulema, was sought by the shah. The state benefi ted from periods of relative peace, though Fath Ali’s military expeditions against both the Ottomans and the Russians in the Caucasus led to a series of wars. During the Napoleonic Wars, which pitted various European powers against the French Empire under Napoleon I, the Qajars were treated as pawns. In 1801 they signed a treaty of cooperation with Great Britain, in which the British promised to supply the Qajars with military assistance against possible attacks on British India from French forces or Afghan tribes that might come through Iran. However, in 1804, having failed to receive any British aid in their war against Russia, since those two nations were now working jointly against the French, the Qajars aligned themselves with Napoleon. In 1807 the Qajars and France signed the Treaty of Finkelstein, in which the French agreed to assist Iran in regaining Georgia if in turn the Qajars assisted the French against the British. The French sent offi cers to train the Qajar army and prepare for an invasion of India, but two years later, the French and Russians signed the Treaty of Tilsit, and Iran was again left without a reliable ally. Finally, Fath Ali and Great Britain entered into another agreement, which included British promises to aid Iran during wartime, particularly during the continuing confl ict with Russia. British military offi cers were sent to Iran in order to assist in the modernization of the Qajar army, which was overseen by the heir to the throne, Abbas Mirza. To fi nance his war with Russia over the control of Georgia, Fath Ali increased the level of taxation and began the Qajar practice of appointing some government posts, including vacant provincial governorships, to the highest bidder. The state also granted taxfree landholdings to those who joined the army. Qajar princes were often named to important governorships, and many of them rivaled the shah in power and infl uence, which led to internal struggles within the dynasty. Despite earlier efforts to centralize the government, the Qajar polity still lacked a cohesive national army or bureaucracy. The war with Russia ended in 1813 with the signing of the Treaty of Gulistan, which granted control over much of the disputed land to the Russians. When reports of Russian suppression of Muslims in the Caucuses reached Iran in 1825, the ulema pressured Fath Ali to declare war on Russia. The next year the shah acquiesced to their demands but was soon defeated because the British refused to aid the Iranians, despite the renewal of their treaty in 1814, since the Qajars had started the confl ict. In 1828 Fath Ali signed the Treaty of Turkmanchai, ending the war and agreeing to cede additional territories to Russia and pay an indemnity for starting the war, which included trade concessions to the Russians. Abbas Mirza, the crown prince, led an invasion of Afghanistan shortly after the end of the war with Ahmad Shah Qajar of Iran. Shah Ahmad did not address his country’s problems and was marginalized. 340 Qajar dynasty Russia, driving toward the city of Herat, but died in 1833 before the conquest could be completed. A year later Fath Ali also died, and the Qajar throne passed to Muhammad Mirza, who was challenged by two other Qajar tribal leaders, Husayn Ali Mirza and Ali Mirza Zill al-Sultan. With the aid of Russian and British troops, who escorted him from Tabriz to Tehran, Muhammad Mirza took power. The reliance on foreigners to prop up the ruling dynasty became steadily more apparent during his reign, which lasted until his death in 1848. The new shah ruled in name only after four years, due to ill health, and the Qajars came under Russian infl uence. NEW PROPHETIC REVELATIONS On September 4, 1848, with the death of his father, Nasir al-Din Shah became the new Qajar monarch. During his reign, the government bureaucracy was built up and centralized further. The infl uence of the ulema over the government remained during Nasir al- Din’s reign, and the government actively suppressed the nascent Baha’i, a religious movement founded in Shiraz in 1844 as an offshoot of Shi’ism under the leadership of a messianic preacher, Sayyid Ali Muhammad, who radically reinterpreted several Shi’i tenets. Sayyid Ali declared that he was the bab, an individual capable of delivering new prophetic revelations. After a joint conference of Sunni and Shi’i ulema met in Ottomanheld Baghdad and declared the new religion to be deviant and Sayyid Ali an apostate, the Baha’i leader was arrested and executed in 1850. Under the leadership of Amir Kabir, who served as the shah’s fi rst prime minister from 1848 to 1851, the Qajar tax system was reformed and the growth of indigenous industries, including armaments factories, was encouraged. Iranians were sent to Russia and countries in western Europe to receive technological training and to observe the workings of foreign governments. Despite his positive impact on the state or perhaps because of it, Amir Kabir was deposed by the shah in 1851 and exiled to the city of Kashan, where he was murdered the next year. In 1870 the shah named Mirza Husayn Khan as prime minister, and the new premier began a series of reforms, which included the further centralization of the state’s power, the curbing of the authority of provincial governors, and the formation of a cabinet and a consultative assembly. In 1872 the prime minister granted a trade concession to Baron Julius de Reuter, a Briton, that granted him a 75 percent share of all Iran’s mines, except those with precious minerals, and the exclusive right to oversee the construction of railroads in Iran. The next year, when the concession was made public, the shah was pressured by the ulema, who opposed many of its provisions, to remove the prime minister from offi ce, which Nasir al-Din reluctantly did. Mirza Husayn, however, was not exiled but returned to the inner circle of the shah’s advisers, where he remained until his dismissal in 1880. His reforms and attempt to modernize Iran by emulating western Europe were opposed by the ulema and many in the Qajar government who resented the attempt to limit their authority. Thus many of the reforms ended after his dismissal from offi ce and subsequent retirement from politics. The confl ict between the state and the ulema came to a head again in 1890, after the shah granted a trade concession to a British company that allowed them to monopolize the tobacco trade in Iran. The clergy condemned the shah’s decision and called for the public to oppose the concession. Protests and riots broke out across Iran, and in December of that year Grand Ayatollah Mirza Hasan Shirazi, the world’s senior Shi’i cleric, issued a juridical opinion (fatwa) that declared the use of tobacco illegal because of the trade concession; his ruling was obeyed by the majority of Iran’s population, including the wives of the shah and Iran’s non-Shi’i population. In early 1892, under intense public pressure, the shah rescinded the concession. Nasir al-Din was assassinated four years later while meeting with petitioners at the royal court. LAVISH LIFESTYLE The monarchy’s woes continued under the new shah Muzzafar ad-Din, who faced widespread opposition among the ulema, the merchant class, and the general public in late 1905 when he put in place new, restrictive economic laws and granted trade concessions to European powers in order to fi nance his family’s lavish lifestyle. A constitutionalist movement, which opposed the concessions, led to the formation of a representative assembly, the Majlis, in 1906. The shah died the next year, and his successor, Muhammad Ali Shah, cancelled the agreement in June 1908 and ordered an attack on the Majlis building and implemented martial law. Muhammad Ali used the army to put down popular revolts that erupted following the closing of the Majlis, and constitutionalist forces fl ed to Tabriz, where they withstood a siege by the shah’s army for months. By the summer of 1909 a coalition of constitutionalist and other anti-Qajar forces captured Isfahan and marched Qajar dynasty 341 on Tehran, forcing Muhammad Ali to abdicate on July 16. The deposed shah went into exile in Russia and two years later attempted to reclaim the throne by invading Iran, but was again defeated. The outbreak of the World War I in 1914 and the violation of Iran’s declared neutrality by both the Central Powers and the Triple Entente led to the country becoming a battleground as Ottoman and German invasions were matched by British counterattacks. The war was also marked by the signing of new agreements between Great Britain and the Qajars guaranteeing British infl uence over the country. Reeling from the aftershocks of the war, Iran was beset with invasions by Russian Bolshevik forces in 1920, the continued presence of British troops, and sectarian revolts by the country’s Kurdish and Azeri minority communities. The inability of Shah Ahmad to address the country’s mounting external and internal problems led to his being marginalized by Reza Khan, a commander of the Persian Cossack Brigade, who formally put an end to the Qajar state and established the Pahlavi dynasty in 1926 after quelling revolts and successfully implementing a new authoritarian political order in Iran. Further reading: Bosworth, Edmund, and Carole Hillenbrand, eds. Qajar Iran: Political, Social and Cultural Change 1800–1925. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1983; Daniel, Elton L., ed. Society and Culture in Qajar Iran: Studies in Honor of Hafez Farmayan. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2002; Kamrava, Mehran. The Political History of Modern Iran: From Tribalism to Theocracy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992; Keddie, Nikki R. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003; Arjomand, Said Amir. The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam: Religion, Political Order, and Societal Change in Shi’i Iran from the Beginning to 1890. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984. Christopher Anzalone Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung) (1711–1799) Chinese ruler Emperor Qianlong was the fourth ruler of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty. He abdicated after 60 years on the throne so that his reign would not be longer than that of his revered grandfather Emperor Kangxi (K’anghsi). The Qing dynasty reached its zenith under him, as he was a brilliant and hardworking ruler, but many problems developed during his later years that forebode dynastic decline. Born in 1711, the fourth son of Emperor Yongzheng (Yung-cheng), he was named Hongli (Hung-li) and was rigorously educated in the Confucian classics, history, literature, rituals, administrative techniques, and military skills. His school day lasted from dawn to midafternoon, with only fi ve holidays per year. He was taught that a good ruler must have “the ability and desire to discover, select, and use ministers of high talent . . . and to exhaust their talent in the service of the state.” Age 24, when he ascended the throne, he inherited a prosperous empire at peace, a full treasury, and able counselors who had served his father. Qianlong traveled widely on six tours of inspection to the south, four to the east, and fi ve to the west. He had a splendid military record and led several campaigns personally. In the 1750s his army fi nally and conclusively ended independent nomad power in Central Asia, and he annexed all lands in what is now China, plus present-day Mongolia, the Ili Valley of Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia. This was a feat comparable with the achievement of the most successful previous dynasties. The distance his armies traveled exceeded the distance of Napoleon’s failed march to Moscow in his Russian campaign. The Qing dynasty moreover continued to control these extensive territories for over a century by maintaining large garrisons and administrators throughout the pacifi ed territories. His other campaigns, though less momentous, included the subjugation of Burma, Annam (Vietnam), and the Gurkhas in Nepal, bringing into or retaining these areas in the Qing tributary system. Dozens of states in addition, ranging from Korea, Siam, and Central Asian khanates such as Bokhara, Khokand, and Badakshan, also paid tribute. The domestic achievements of the Qianlong reign were equally striking. He was a great patron of all the arts and learning, which he demonstrated in many ways. In addition to the regular exams for recruiting civil servants he held special examinations to recognize men of great learning and invited famous scholars to join the government. He was also an avid collector of paintings, calligraphy, and fi ne works of many genres of art. Thousands of pieces of art in the national museums of both Taipei and Beijing were collected by Qianlong. His lavish patronage of art and crafts stimulated highquality workmanship throughout the empire. Qianlong was also a calligrapher, painter, and poet and spent his spare time in literary pursuits. He boasted of composing a grand total of 43,000 poems in his lifetime. 342 Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung) More important, Qianlong sponsored great literary projects, including the compilation of the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries that contained 36,000 volumes arranged into four categories as follows: classics, history, philosophy, and belles lettres. Its catalog listed 10,230 works. Seven complete sets of the Four Treasuries were printed and deposited in libraries in different parts of the empire. Qianlong also had an ulterior motive in sponsoring this project—to exercise censorship over works that he considered derogatory to the Manchus, which he then destroyed. As many as 528 titles met that fate. The social and political stability that he inherited and prolonged produced a signifi cant population increase, to approximately 300 million by his reign’s end. New crops introduced from the Americas, promotion of irrigation, and the opening up of virgin lands increased food-producing capacity, feeding the increase in population. He also reduced land taxes and maintained granaries that relieved famine. For all his splendid achievements, historians have not judged Emperor Qianlong kindly, in part because his reign was the watershed between the successful era of the early Qing and the precipitous decline that set in during the 19th century. The very success of his reign brought problems, the most difficult being the unprecedented expansion of Chinese agriculture and population. Pressure for land led to internal colonization by Han Chinese of land held by minority ethnic peoples that would lead to tribal rebellions and peasant unrest. Large-scale commercial expansion and export-oriented enterprises begun during the early Qing initially resulted in very favorable balance of trade for China. However, by the late 18th century, Great Britain, China’s major trading partner, had found an item that would redress its unfavorable balance of trade: opium. Initially a legally imported medicinal item, opium later became popular as a recreational drug. While addiction to opium was at its infancy during his reign, it would later explode to cause a national and international crisis. Qianlong’s judgment became seriously fl awed as he got older. Around 1775 he met a young, handsome guardsman named Heshan (Ho-shen) whom he rapidly promoted to the highest offi ces of the empire; he even married his youngest daughter to Heshan’s son. Heshan was openly and massively corrupt and promoted cronies who colluded with him to extort money. Although Qianlong retired in 1795, he nevertheless continued to exercise power behind the scenes. Thus it was not until Qianlong’s death in 1799 that his son and successor Emperor Jiaqing (Chia-ch’ing) could arrest and execute Heshan and confi scate his ill-gotten wealth, estimated at $1.5 billion. Qianlong’s long reign began brilliantly and proceeded on a steady and successful course. The personal decline that set in during his old age would become the beginning of dynastic decline. In 1793 Great Britain’s fi rst ambassador, Lord Macartney, arrived in China, coinciding with the emperor’s birthday celebrations. Macartney’s account noted the emperor’s remarkably fi t physical condition for a man of his age, but assessed the outwardly magnifi cent Qing Empire as decaying from within. His words proved prophetic. See also Macartney mission to China; Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline. Further reading: Kahn, Harold L. Monarchy in the Emperor’s Eyes, Image and Reality in the Ch’ien-lung Reign. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971; Kent, Guy R. The Emperor’s Four Treasuries: Scholar and the State in the Late Ch’ien-lung Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987; Peterson, Willard J. ed. The Cambridge History of China, Vol 9, Part I, The Ch’ing Empire to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline The Qing dynasty (1644–1911) was the last of 24 dynasties in Chinese history and one of the most successful. The transition from its predecessor the Ming dynasty, was one of the least disruptive in Chinese history. In the territory it controlled the Qing was the second largest in Chinese history, after the Mongol Yuan dynasty. The Qing is also called the Manchu dynasty, after the ethnic origin of the ruling house. The Manchus were frontier people from northeastern China; they were originally nomadic but as frontier vassals of the Ming had learned agriculture and Chinese ways before 1644. Although the Manchus maintained a privileged status for their people, they nevertheless gained the support of their majority Han Chinese subjects by upholding Chinese institutions and assimilating to Chinese culture. China enjoyed a century and half of prosperity under three capable and long reigning early Qing emperors, Kangxi (K’ang-hsi), Yongzheng (Yung-cheng), and Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung). Qing dynastic fortune began to decline toward the end of the Qianlong reign partly due to the emperor’s fail ing ability as he aged, allowing corruption to Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline 343 fl ourish. There were, however, longer-term reasons beyond Qianlong’s or anyone’s control that led to the turn of dynastic fortunes. One was the demographic disaster. Over a century of peace led to an unprecedented explosion in population, which tripled in two centuries from approximately 150 million in 1650 to about 450 million in 1850 while arable land rose from 5.27 million qing (ch’ing) in 1661 to 7.9 million in 1812 (1 qing=15.13 acres). Thus food production did not keep up with population increase despite the introduction of new crops— maize, sweet potatoes, and peanuts—and improved farming techniques. The result was the decreasing size of farms and the migration of poor farmers to cities, where there were no factories to absorb them. This domestic crisis was made worse by the opium problem. Other causes of dynastic decline included the corruption and loss of martial spirit of the once powerful Manchu banner army. Mounting domestic problems that overwhelmed the later Manchu rulers fueled a revival of anti-Manchu sentiments that had never died out, especially in southern China. From before the common era trade between China and the West had been primarily overland, across Eurasia via the Silk Road. Portuguese traders who fi rst arrived on the coast by sea in the 16th century supplanted the overland trade, and China accumulated a surplus due to European demand for Chinese silks, tea, and porcelain. Westerners eventually found a profi table item to sell to the Chinese: opium. By the 18th century Great Britain had gained primacy as China’s trading partner and primary seller of opium, which the British East India Company produced in Bengal, India. Increasing Chinese addiction to opium, and the government’s inability to prohibit its import created an unfavorable balance of trade for China, in addition to moral and public health crises. The incompatible Chinese and Western views of the world order, diplomatic relations, and international law resulted in wars between China and Great Britain and France, called Opium Wars by China, in the mid- 19th century. Defeats led to the signing of dictated treaties that opened up China on Western terms and the imposition of extraterritorial rights for Westerners in China, plus territorial losses and indemnities. Belatedly, the Qing government responded with limited adoption of Western-style reforms beginning in the 1860s. Loyalists and reformers saved the dynasty by defeating serious rebellions (the Taiping Rebellion, the Nian Rebellion, and the Muslim Rebellions being the most threatening) and inaugurating modernizing schemes such as the Tongzhi Restoration/Self- Strengthening Movement. But the reforms were inadequate due to the lack of central leadership and massive corruption under the dowager empress Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) who held the reins of power between 1862 and 1908. Her reactionary policies aborted the dynasty’s last chance for survival through the Hundred Days of Reforms in 1898, and her xenophobia resulted in the disastrous Boxer Rebellion in 1900. A revolution led by Western-educated Dr. Sun Yat-sen in 1911 ended the dynastic era in Chinese history. Although the decline of the Qing dynasty preceded negative Western infl uences, its inability to adjust and respond effectively accelerated its decline and fall. Additionally the nature of the Western impact changed the traditional pattern of the dynastic cycle because, unlike previous invading groups who had prevailed over China, the Westerners enjoyed technological superiority backed by a highly advanced civilization. The clash of traditional Chinese with modern Western civilizations would result in a radical and diffi cult transformation of China that would persist into the 21st century. See also Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars. Further reading: Cohen, Paul A., and John E. Schreker, eds. Reform in Nineteenth-Century China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976; Fairbank, John K., ed. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 10, Late Ch’ing. 1800–1911 Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978; Fairbank, John K., and Kwang-ching Liu, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 11, Part 2, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980; Levenson, Joseph R. Confucian China and its Modern Fate: The Problem of Monarchical Decay. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968; Wright, Mary C., ed. China in Revolution: The First Phase, 1900–1913. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

Pahlavi dynasty and Shah Reza Khan At the end of World War I, Iran was in desperate straits. The authority of the central government had broken down, and the country faced national bankruptcy in addition to famine in some regions. In 1919 the majlis (parliament) declined a British offer of fi nancial and military assistance, and British support personnel left the country. Reza Khan, the commanding offi cer of the Persian Cossack Brigade, along with newspaper editor and political writer Sayyid Zia Tabatabai, stepped into the void and seized power in a February 1921 coup d’état. Sayyid Zia Tabatabai became premier, and Reza Khan became commander of the armed forces. On February 26, the new government signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. Reza Khan was the true power in the new government. Within three months he had ousted Tabatabai, who went into exile. Two years later, in October 1923, with the support of loyal army forces, Reza Khan became premier, and Shah Ahmad Mirza, the last shah of the Qajar dynasty, left the country never to return. In October 1925, the majlis formally deposed Ahmad Shah, and in December Reza Khan was proclaimed the new sovereign. In an attempt to tie the new monarchy to ancient Persian history, Reza Khan took the name Pahlavi for his dynasty. He then embarked on an ambitious program of modernization. During his reign, Reza Shah enacted educational and judicial reforms that eroded the role and infl uence of the mullahs (Shi’i clergy), and the clerics gradually lost their preeminence in education, judicial administration, and document registration. The clergy opposed these and other reforms and often openly clashed with the new regime. In a push for national unifi cation, Reza Shah banned traditional and ethnic forms of dress in favor of Western clothing. He opened the nation’s schools and its fi rst university in Tehran to women. Women were offi cially freed from wearing the veil in 1936, and divorce laws were also changed in their favor. Reza Shah established an authoritarian system, suppressing political parties and restricting the press. Rebellious tribal leaders were either imprisoned or put to death. Several of Reza Shah’s ministers and other prominent Iranian critics of the regime also died under suspicious circumstances. On the other hand, Reza Shah implemented many reforms that benefi ted the nation. He established a national bank in 1927 and improved the tax collection process. He also transformed Iran’s bureaucracy into a Western-style civil service of 90,000 people and extended the reach of the national government through reorganized ministries and administrative divisions. He instituted a form of state socialism to build a modern infrastructure. New civil, penal, and commercial codes were introduced. In 1933 Reza Khan also gained improved terms on the oil concession granted to British companies earlier in the 20th century. External rather than internal events ended Reza Shah’s reign. Fearing both increased Soviet and British infl uences in Iran, Reza Shah turned to Nazi Germany. After Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, P Iran’s neutrality was jeopardized as the Allies sought safe, overland passage through Iran for delivery of U.S. supplies to the Soviet front. They also wanted to ensure that Germany did not gain access to vital Iranian oil supplies. When it became evident that the shah would not cooperate, Soviet and British troops invaded Iran in August 1941. In September Reza Shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his eldest son, Mohammed Reza; he went into exile fi rst to Mauritius and then to South Africa. He died in Johannesburg on July 26, 1994. See also Iran-Soviet relations; oil industry in the Middle East. Further reading: Ghani, Cyrus. Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah: From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Rule. London: Tauris, 2000; Katouzian, Homa. State and Society in Iran: The Eclipse of the Qajars and the Emergence of the Pahlavis. London: Tauris, 2000; Wilber, Donald N. Iran: Past and Present. 9th ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. Keith Bukovich Pakistan resolution The Pakistan resolution (also known as the Lahore resolution) called for the creation of one or more separate Muslim states on the Indian subcontinent. The All- India Muslim League passed the resolution on March 23, 1940, during its meeting at Lahore, India. Muslims in British-ruled India had become concerned about what would happen when Great Britain left India. As the minority population in predominantly Hindu India, they were concerned about being able to protect their rights and their religious identity. They believed that their best option was the creation of Muslim states, formed in the regions where Muslims were a majority of the population. As India moved toward self-government during the 1930s, many people believed that it would become an independent nation with a Hindu majority and Muslim minority. Many hoped that the two civilizations could work together to form a federated government. The India Act of 1935 moved India closer to independence by turning more of the government functions over to the local population by setting up elections that took place in 1937. The Muslim League hoped to win some positions during the election, but instead it was almost totally shut out of the government and only won control in provinces with a Muslim majority. The Indian National Congress, led by Mohandas K. Gandhi, won control of most local legislatures and declared that it was the only national party. However, led by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League declared that it was still an equal partner in the governing process of the country. Muslim leaders feared that the Hindus were only interested in having complete control of the government and were not interested in sharing power in governing the country. When World War II began the congress refused to participate in the war, claiming that it had no interest in the affairs of Europe. The congress ordered its members to resign their offi ces to protest India’s being forced to support Britain’s war effort. Hindus protested India’s involvement in the war and, Gandhi said that India would only support the war effort when Britain set a date for Indian independence. Jinnah and the Muslim League took the opposite approach. They offered Britain their support and cooperation in the hope that Britain would then support their desire for a separate Muslim nation after the war. The British were happy with the support and included Jinnah in many aspects of the government. As a result, the league enhanced its stature and gained governing experience, while many congress leaders languished in jail. The Muslim League held its convention at Lahore, India, and on March 23, 1940, issued the Pakistan resolution calling for the creation of a Muslim state or states. They called their state Pakistan, formed from the provinces in the northwestern part of India where the majority of the population was Muslim. Pakistan became an independent state in 1947. Further reading: Jaffrelot, Christophe, ed. A History of Pakistan and Its Origins. Gillian Beaumont, trans. London: Anthem Press, 2002; Malik, Muhammad Aslam. The Making of the Pakistan Resolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; Ziring, Lawrence. Pakistan: At the Crosscurrent of History. Oxford: Oneworld, 2003. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Pan-Africanism Pan-Africanism originated in the late 19th century in the West Indies. The spark for its enunciation was European colonialism’s impact on Africa and Africandescended people around the world. In the mid-20th century, Pan-Africanism became a rallying cry for 288 Pakistan resolution the African independence movements. Some elements sought a unifi ed postcolonial continentwide African nation. The Pan-African movement developed two strains. Continental Pan-Africanism dealt with the continent itself, emphasizing political union or international cooperation. Diaspora Pan-Africanism attempted to bring together all black Africans and persons of African descent. The underlying assumption of Pan-Africanism is that all African people have common ties and objectives that can best be realized by united effort. All Africans around the world have a common future based on a common past of forced dispersal through the slave trade, oppression through colonialism and racism, economic exploitation, and denial of political rights. All Africans also share a common history, culture, and social background, all of which are denied by white racism. “All Africans” has been variously defi ned as including all black Africans, all people descended from black Africans, all people in Africa regardless of color, and all African states. All people working together for a common African goal based on a common African experience are considered part of the Pan-African movement. Originally, Pan-Africanism sought unity of all African black cultures and countries. It expanded to encompass all black-descended people in the world, those who had been forced to the Caribbean, the United States, Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asia through the transatlantic and Islamic/East African slave trades as well as later immigration. Some Pan- Africanists include the Sudroid and Australoid blacks of India. Also included are the Andamanese Island Negritos and the black aborigines of Melanesia, New Guinea, and Australia. Colonial conquest was commonly followed by control of the native populations as a source of cheap and reliable labor in mines and on African plantations. Europeans came to dominate a market-based production of raw materials. Europeans imposed a caste system and a foreign type of governance over the tribal peoples, and the British were notable for using the local offi cials as pawns. Internal developments were made to facilitate the extraction of African wealth for European benefi t. Africans fought the colonialists from early on. Discontent with the system and dislike of the colonialists led to efforts to unify Africans for their own good. African rulers protested in writing to their European counterparts, and slaves rose against oppression periodically in the Americas and the Caribbean. At the Congress of Berlin in 1884 to reduce European rivalries and friction in Africa, the European powers prepared to divide Africa among themselves. The race for Africa led George Charles of the African Emigration Association (AEA) to declare in 1886 that the AEA intended to establish the United States of Africa. A Pan- Africanist conference in Chicago in 1893 denounced the European division of Africa, particularly the actions of the French against Liberia and Abyssinia. In 1900 Henry Sylvester-Williams organized a Pan- African conference that brought Africans from the Caribbean and United States to London to discuss common concerns with white Britian. Initially, the meeting sought to protest unequal treatment of blacks in colonial Britain and in Britain itself. Speakers also spoke of the need to preserve the dignity of African peoples and to educate them and provide social services. The conference also heard W. E. B. DuBois predict that “the problem of the twentieth century is the color line.” Williams died in 1911, and DuBois took over management of the congresses. He organized the next several meetings. DuBois, one of the founders of the Niagara movement and the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and other black leaders were concerned after World War I about the treatment of African-American and African soldiers as well as the status of the former German African colonies. The fi rst Pan-African Congress took place in 1919 in Paris, where the European powers were holding the Paris Peace Conference. The 1919 Pan-African Congress had an agenda similar to that of the 1900 meeting. Africans needed education and the right to participate in their own affairs. The former German colonies were of particular interest, and a proposal was made that the League of Nations hold them in trust until they were ready for self-determination. The league did take the territories under nominal oversight but gave them to the other European states without requiring any move toward self-determination. The congresses became larger as attendance from the Unites States, Africa, the Caribbean, and Europe increased. Reasons for the growth included sponsorship of delegates by international labor movements, which were growing during the 1920s. Also, the black nationalism of Marcus Garvey was on the ascent. Garveyites in the United States sought African unity as well as improvement of the lot of working-class blacks. They contrasted with the elite blacks who tended to support DuBois. The Jamaican Garvey formed the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) in 1914 as a vehicle for instilling black pride and improving the political and economic lot of blacks everywhere. Pan-Africanism 289 Garveyism also called for repatriation to Africa, the Back to Africa movement. Garvey’s movement rose rapidly, expanding beyond the United States. His UNIA had chapters in Europe, Australia, and South Africa, and his Negro World sold widely. The Black Star Line was Garvey’s vehicle for entry into international trade as well as for transporting blacks to Liberia. In 1925 Garvey was arrested on mail fraud charges in connection with the operation of the steamship line, and the movement faded. Garvey’s ideas lingered on, stimulating African students in London to create the West African Student Union (WASU) in 1929. WASU brought together the young, aggressive African and Caribbean blacks who wanted political independence for the African colonies. Drawing attention to the problems of black people in the late 1920s and 1930s was the Harlem Renaissance, the most prominent of the black cultural movements of the time. The Harlem Renaissance, centered in New York’s predominantly black neighborhood, brought public awareness of the work of such black writers as Richard Wright, Langston Hughes, and Claude McKay as well as DuBois. It also featured black artists who called for black pride and an end to racial injustice. France’s African and Caribbean black artists founded the négritude movement, which stated that all Africans regardless of geographic location had a common set of traits. Négritude rebuffed those who alleged African inferiority. It included authors such as Aimé Césaire, Alioune Diop, Leon-Gontran Damas, and Leopold Sédar Senghor, who later would serve as Senegal’s fi rst president. The Great Depression of the 1930s and the world war of the 1940s set back the Pan-African movement. British and U.S. blacks remained involved, though, protesting the 1935 invasion of Ethiopia by Italy, for instance. African-American organizations established the Council on African Affairs in 1937; this was the fi rst black-led U.S. lobbying organization. It sought to increase Americans’ awareness of the problems of blacks subjected to colonialism and sought independence for the African colonies. While in the United States as a student in the early 1940s, Kwame Nkrumah of the British colony the Gold Coast (now Ghana) founded the African Student Organization. He moved to London in 1944 and joined the Pan-Africanist movement led by the Jamaican George Padmore and the Trinidadian C. L. R. James. Other members were Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya and Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, both of whom, like Nkrumah, would eventually lead their countries. This group sponsored the fi fth Pan-African Congress in 1945. That meeting brought together trade unionists and nationalists from England, the United States, Africa, and the Caribbean in Manchester, England, and it spurred African leadership in the Pan-African and African independence movements. Independence came to 17 African countries in 1960; 80 percent of the continent was independent by the end of 1963. Many of the new leaders resisted Nkrumah’s United States of Africa, preferring to preserve newly won autonomy. The Organization of African Unity (OAU, now the African Union), founded at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by 32 north and sub-Saharan African nations in 1963, was a loose federation dedicated to cooperation across the continent. Political union failed to materialize because Africa’s new states were preoccupied with political differences and widespread poverty. The last European colonies became independent between 1974 and 1980. Pan-African groups throughout the world continued to pressure governments and increase public awareness through the 1980s and early 1990s of the injustice of white minority rule in Namibia and South Africa. Continental Pan-Africanism remains as a means of addressing Africa’s severe problems. It takes the form of regional cooperative groups including the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC, originally the Southern African Develop Coordination Council, SADCC). These trade organizations have promoted regional economic integration. They provide a counterforce to the international trade blocs led by North America, Asia, and Europe. African-descended people throughout the world still face political, social, and economic challenges. Because their problems are similar, international cooperation and common problem-solving strategies remain essential. These approaches are the fruit of Pan-Africanism. Critics note that Pan-Africanism fails to acknowledge that blacks around the world are not one unit. They have different cultures, ethnicities, societies, and political structures. See also Casely Hayford, Joseph Ephraim; National Congress of British West Africa. Further reading: Benn, Denis. The Caribbean: An Intellectual History, 1774–2003. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers, 2004; Holledge, Julie, Marika Sherwood, and Hakim Adi. Pan-African History. London: Routledge, 2003; Kanneh, Kadiatu. African Identities. London: Routledge, 290 Pan-Africanism 1998; Lewis, David Levering. W.E.B. Du Bois: Biography of a Race, 1868–1919. New York: Henry Holt, 1993; ———. W.E.B. Du Bois: The Fight for Equality and the American Century, 1919–1963. New York: Henry Holt, 2001; Van Deburg, William L., ed. Modern Black Nationalism. New York: NYU Press, 1996. John H. Barnhill Panama Canal Ever since the Spaniard Vasco Núñez de Balboa’s “discovery” of the Pacifi c Ocean in 1513, Europeans had dreamed of an oceanic shortcut linking the Atlantic to the Pacifi c. The Panama Canal, built by the U.S. government from 1903 to 1914, realized that vision at the cost of $352 million and, by offi cial count, 5,609 lives from accidents and disease (including some 4,500 black West Indian laborers). The canal, which extends from Colón on the Caribbean side to Panama City on the Pacifi c, traverses 77 kilometers through three sets of locks. One of the most remarkable technological feats in world history and far and away the largest engineering project ever undertaken up to that time, the Panama Canal transformed markets, demographics, geopolitics, and national histories in the Western Hemisphere in myriad ways. After 1902, protection of exclusive U.S. rights to a transisthmian canal was the pivot upon which U.S. policy in the Caribbean and Central America turned. The many episodes of U.S. military, political, and economic intervention in the fi rst three decades of the 20th century can be traced, directly or indirectly, to larger U.S. economic and geostrategic interests centered on the Panama Canal. For many years, the Panama route had been considered impractical due to the elevation of the continental divide. That the canal ended up being built in Panama and not in Nicaragua resulted from a highly unlikely combination of circumstances, including a bloody three-year civil war in Colombia and its province of Panama (1899–1902); the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley; the imperialist inclinations of McKinley’s vice president and successor, Theodore Roosevelt; and an intensive last-minute campaign by the “Panama lobby” in the halls of the U.S. Congress. The building of the canal in Panama capped more than half a century of various schemes for an interoceanic route that intensifi ed with the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War (1846–48) and the California gold rush of 1848–49. In 1850 the U.S. and British governments signed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, in which both countries agreed (without consulting Nicaragua) that neither would exercise exclusive rights to the proposed Nicaragua canal. The 1850s saw two land routes built across Central America: the Panama Railroad (completed in 1855) and the Nicaragua route, brainchild of Cornelius Vanderbilt and his Accessory Transit Company (in service from 1851 to 1856). Serious surveying work for a transisthmian canal route began in the 1870s by two different groups: a French syndicate and the U.S. government. In 1878 the Colombian government granted canal rights to a French consortium under the direction of Ferdinand de Lesseps. Construction commenced in 1881, but by 1889 disease, cost overruns, and related problems led to the fi rm’s bankruptcy and the project’s abandonment. As many as 20,000 workers died during the eight-year fi asco. In 1901 a U.S. commission unanimously recommended the Nicaragua route. In that same year the U.S. and British governments signed the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, abrogating the 1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and granting the United States exclusive rights to the proposed Nicaragua canal. The 1902 U.S. decision to build the canal in Panama shocked and dismayed the Nicaraguan elite, who had been convinced that the canal would be built in their country. In January 1903 U.S. and Colombian negotiators signed the Hay-Herrán Treaty, granting the U.S. government a strip of land across Panama for the proposed canal in exchange for $10 million and $250,000 per year thereafter. The Colombian senate rejected the treaty. President Roosevelt, infuriated by those he termed the “contemptible little creatures . . . the Bogotá lot of jackrabbits,” engineered a rebellion by dissident elements in Panama. The rebels declared independence on November 3, 1903. Three days later the Roosevelt administration recognized the breakaway republic. On November 17 the two nations signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the United States exclusive and perpetual control of the canal zone under the same terms as the scuttled Hay-Herrán Treaty with Colombia. As Roosevelt later declared, “I took the Canal Zone.” Actual construction commenced in 1907, and the canal opened on August 15, 1914. In 1921 the U.S. government agreed to pay Colombia $25 million in exchange for Colombian recognition of Panama’s independence. In September 1977 U.S. president Jimmy Carter and Panama chief of government Omar Torrijos Panama Canal 291 signed the Panama Canal Treaty, relinquishing U.S. control of the canal to Panama by the year 2000. Panama assumed formal control of the canal at noon on December 31, 1999. The technical, diplomatic, and geopolitical aspects of the Panama Canal have spawned a vast literature. Further reading. Gobat, Michel. Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005; McCullough, David. The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870– 1914. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977; Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Michael J. Schroeder Pankhursts British feminists Emmeline Pankhurst, née Goulden, was born in Manchester, England, on July 14, 1858, the daughter of successful and politically progressive parents. Her education, though, followed respectable Victorian lines, which included time in a Parisian fi nishing school. Upon her return to Manchester in 1878, she met Richard Pankhurst, a radical lawyer and advocate of women’s rights, whom she married in 1879. Her husband’s political ambitions were geared to extending the 1867 Reform Act to include women, and to this end he promoted the fi rst Women’s Suffrage Bill and reform of the Married Women’s Property Bills of 1870 and 1882. 292 Pankhursts The Panama Canal transformed markets, demographics, geopolitics, and national histories in the Western Hemisphere in many ways. Actual construction started in 1907, and the canal opened on August 15, 1914. The Austrian and Hungarian treaties were similar and originally were to be presented simultaneously to the empire’s heirs, but that with Hungary was delayed until the Communist regime was replaced. Both states had to abjure the Habsburg monarchy and guarantee their independence. Austria had to renounce Anschluss (union) with Germany. Both were landlocked and severely shrunken but emerged ethnically homogeneous. Austria’s territorial losses included Galicia to Poland; Bohemia and Moravia to Czechoslovakia; the Trentino, South Tyrol, and Istria to Italy; Bukovina to Romania; and Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dalmatia, and coastal islands to Yugoslavia. The new Austria consisted of the vast capital of a defunct empire surrounded by uneconomic mountainous hinterlands. Psychological dislocation was also severe. Hungary’s territorial truncation was also acute but left a more economically viable state, thanks to fertile plains. Slovakia and Ruthenia went to Czechoslovakia, Transylvania to Romania, Croatia-Slavonia to Yugoslavia, and most of the Banat to Romania and Yugoslavia. A third of Hungary’s prewar territory remained, and a third of the Magyars were outside its borders. Hungary never accepted the settlement but lacked the power to alter it. BULGARIA AND TURKEY Bulgaria was equally resentful, though its territorial losses were much smaller. However, hostile neighbors gained greatly, weakening it comparatively. Bulgaria hoped that ethnic factors would mean territorial gain, but the victors yielded nothing. Bulgaria lost to Greece its prized Aegean coastline (and thus direct access to the Mediterranean). Macedonia went to Greece and Yugoslavia, which also gained strategic border salients. Bulgaria emerged largely homogeneous but helplessly bitter. Unlike other eastern treaties, that of Sèvres intruded in internal affairs. An international commission would control the straits from the Black Sea to the Aegean, which would be open to all ships of all nations in peace and war. The existing capitulatory regime of extraterritorial privileges for westerners was enlarged. Because territorial losses were vast, reparations would be minimal, but Europeans would exert fi nancial control, especially of the Ottoman debt. Some territorial losses merely ratifi ed prewar situations, but in addition Turkey’s Arabian domains were surrendered, part therefore becoming the independent kingdom of Hijaz in minimal fulfi llment of wartime promises to Arabs. Syria (including Lebanon) became a French mandate, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine (including Transjordan) British mandates, the latter with a requirement that the Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917) be applied to ensure “a national home” for Jewish people. Various Aegean islands went to Italy (whose hopes of Anatolian territory were dashed) and Greece. In Europe Greece gained eastern Thrace and in Anatolia effective control of Smyrna (Izmir). In clauses never fulfi lled, Kurdistan was to become autonomous or independent and Armenia independent. The Sèvres Treaty, which the captive Ottoman sultan never ratifi ed, was a 19th-century imperial document. It was overtaken by the nationalist uprising of Mustapha Kemal Atatürk, who drove Greece from Anatolia, created a national assembly in Ankara and a republic, deposed the sultan, and nearly collided with British forces in the straits. The triumphant Turks rejected Sèvres. Thus, its purely Turkish portions were renegotiated at Lausanne between November 1922 and July 1923. Kemal’s deputy, Ismet Inönü, ably led the Turkish delegation with periodic Soviet and American support. Under the Treaty of Lausanne (July 24, 1923), Turkey regained eastern Thrace, Smyrna, and some Aegean islands; a forced population exchange resolved minority problems. It retained much of Armenia and Kurdistan. Financial, extraterritorial, and most military restrictions were ended, as were reparations. Turkey gained the presidency of the straits commission and could close them to belligerents if it was at war. Aside from modifi cation of the straits convention, this treaty lasted because it was negotiated and moderate and because Turkey accepted the end of empire. Six lengthy treaties left much undone. Plebiscites and boundary commissions would set precise borders; the peace structure of Allied commissions, committees, and supreme councils would settle details. However, eastern borders with Russia hung fi re, as did the fate of the Baltic states. The future of Fiume (Rijeka), a port disputed between Italy and Yugoslavia, was unresolved, as were reparations totals and allocations. The peacemakers did not bring stability to Europe nor address its balance of power, shattered by World War I. AMERICAN REJECTION Rejection of the treaties by the United States (and also China) acutely dislocated from the outset a peace structure designed by men born in the late 19th century who could not rise above their nationalistic, imperialistic, Eurocentric era. Still, Poles, Czechs, and a few Arabs gained independence; Middle Eastern mandates 296 Paris Peace Conference and Treaties (1919–1920, 1923) were designed to be brief, whereas others restricted imperialism a bit. Europe’s ethnic minorities were cut in half, and a European-dominated international organization proved useful within limits. But, as before, great powers decided matters. Since two of them, Germany and Britain, persistently pursued revision of the Versailles Treaty, it crumbled, implying Germany’s eventual continental predominance and frightening its weaker neighbors. Thus, Wilson’s goal of a world “made safe for every peace-loving nation” remained unmet. Further reading: Boemeke, Manfred F., Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, eds. The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Sharp, Alan. The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking in Paris, 1919. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 1991. Sally Marks Pearl Harbor Japan’s surprise attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941, resulted in one of the most costly defeats in American history. Over 2,000 American military and civilian personnel were killed as a result of the attack, and all eight of the U.S. battleships moored in Pearl Harbor that morning were heavily damaged or destroyed. In addition, hundreds of U.S. planes on nearby airfi elds were destroyed or damaged in the assault. Despite Japanese hopes that such a devastating attack would force the United States to petition for peace, the events of December 7 strengthened American resolve and silenced the isolationists who had opposed the possibility of the United States’ entering the war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s request to Congress to declare war against Japan on December 8 was almost unanimously approved, with only one dissenting voice in the House of Representatives. Although the nature and timing of the December 7 attack took Americans completely by surprise, tension between the United States and Japan had been mounting for some time over Japanese imperialist ambitions in Asia. In July 1937 the Japanese army launched an invasion of China, having already invaded Manchuria and established the puppet regime of Manchukuo six years earlier. Relations between the United States and Japan worsened in September 1940 when the Japanese signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. When Japan occupied southern Indochina in July 1941, President Roosevelt responded by freezing Japanese assets in the United States and imposing an embargo on oil shipments to Japan. In a series of diplomatic exchanges in the summer and fall of 1941, the United States demanded that Japan withdraw its military forces from China and French Indochina. As U.S.-Japanese relations worsened, Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, commander of the Japanese combined fl eet and Japan’s chief naval strategist, planned a preemptive strike against the United States’ Pacifi c fl eet. Yamamoto, who had studied at Harvard, opposed war with the United States. In the event that war became inevitable, however, Yamamoto insisted that Japan ought to strike fi rst with a massive surprise assault to immobilize the American fl eet. Commander Genda Minoru—an experienced carrier pilot and aerial tactician—helped to work out the details of the plan, which Yamamoto named Operation Z. On November 26, 1941, while U.S.-Japanese negotiations were ongoing, the strike force secretly set sail for Hawaii under the command of Vice Admiral Nagumo Chuichi. On the morning of the attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. code-breakers in Washington, D.C., intercepted and decoded the fi nal part of a 14-part diplomatic message stating that Japan would break off negotiations that day. Correctly interpreting the message as an indication that Japan planned to go to war, but not knowing precisely where or when an attack would take place, General George C. Marshall attempted to radio Hawaii (among other places) to put the forces there on alert. Atmospheric static necessitated the use of commercial telegraph to relay Marshall’s warning to Lieutenant General Walter Short, commander of the U.S. forces in Hawaii. General Short would not receive the message until several hours after the attack had ended. SUBMARINE PERISCOPE In the predawn hours on December 7 Hawaiian time, the minesweeper Condor was patrolling the security zone near the entrance to Pearl Harbor when Ensign R. C. McCloy sighted a submarine periscope. Japanese aviators had opposed the inclusion of submarines in Yamamoto’s attack plan, fearing that the subs—if spotted—would destroy the element of surprise. The pilots were overruled, and a large fl eet of submarines, Pearl Harbor 297 including fi ve short-range “midget” submarines, accompanied the aircraft carriers. The midget submarines were deployed at midnight on December 6, 10 miles from the harbor; their two-man crews were to attack any U.S. vessels attempting to enter or leave the harbor during the aerial assault. Upon detecting one of the midget submarines at approximately 3:45 a.m., McCloy and Quartermaster Second Class R. C. Uttrick reported their discovery via signal lamp to the crew of the USS Ward. The Ward, a destroyer also on patrol near the harbor, conducted a sonar search but found nothing out of the ordinary. Less than three hours later, however, Lieutenant William W. Outerbridge, the newly assigned captain of the Ward, was again summoned from his bunk; this time he spotted a midget submarine following in the wake of the USS Antares. The Ward opened fi re on the Japanese submarine and then followed up with a depth charge attack that sank the submarine. At 6:35 a.m. Outerbridge reported the incident to district command, but no general alarm was raised at the time. Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander of the Pacifi c Fleet, was awaiting verifi - cation of the report when the fi rst wave of the aerial assault hit. As the USS Ward fi red the opening shots of the war in the Pacifi c, the fi rst wave of 183 Japanese fi ghters, bombers, and torpedo planes was making its way toward the naval and air bases on the island of Oahu. Led by Commander Fuchida Mitsuo, the fi rst group of planes had lifted off from carrier fl ight decks approximately 230 miles north of Oahu at 6:00 a.m. At 7:02 a.m., two radar operators at Opana (near the northernmost tip of Oahu) detected a large body of aircraft approaching from the north. They immediately telephoned the information center at Fort Schafter, where the inexperienced duty offi cer Lieutenant Kermit Tyler dismissed the reports as insignifi cant. Tyler knew that air force B-17 bombers were due in that morning from California en route to the Philippines, and he assumed that was what the radar operators had seen on their screens. Once again, therefore, no alarm was raised. The air strike on Pearl Harbor was planned with two different options in mind. If surprise was achieved, then dive-bombers and torpedo planes were to strike the Pacifi c Fleet fi rst, and the level bombers would follow up by dropping armor-piercing bombs over the harbor. In the event that the U.S. forces had been alerted to the impending attack, then the dive-bombers in the fi rst wave of the attack were to strike Wheeler and Hickam Airbases and the navy airfi eld on Ford Island. When Fuchida fi red a single fl are at approximately 7:40 a.m. to indicate that surprise had been achieved, the commander of the fi ghter escort failed to acknowledge the signal. After a brief interval, Fuchida fi red a second fl are. TORA! TORA! TORA! The commander of the dive-bombers, Lieutenant Commander Takahashi Kuichi, mistook the second fl are to mean that the defenders had been alerted, and so the dive-bombers proceeded to attack the airfi elds while the torpedo planes and level bombers concentrated their efforts on the fl eet at Battleship Row. As the fi rst wave of Japanese planes reached Oahu at 7:53 a.m., Fuchida radioed back to the carriers the now-famous code words “Tora! Tora! Tora!” to indicate that total strategic and tactical surprise had been achieved. Nagumo relayed the message to Japan, letting forces there know that coordinated operations against Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies could move forward as well. Upon nearing Oahu, the dive-bombers, or “Vals,” divided into two groups, one targeting Hickam Field and Ford Island while the other went after Wheeler Airfi eld in central Oahu. The fi rst group began bombing the army air base at Hickam Field at 7:55 a.m. The fact that the U.S. planes were lined up wingtip to wingtip as a precaution against possible sabotage made them easy targets for the Japanese bombers. The army 298 Pearl Harbor Photograph of the exact moment the USS Shaw exploded during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941 suffered its heaviest casualties of the raid at Hickam Field, where 182 men were killed or unaccounted for. Wheeler Airfield was also heavily attacked; nearly two-thirds of the 140 planes on the ground at Wheeler were destroyed or put out of action. The naval airbase at Ford Island lost nearly half its planes in the Japanese assault, and the one at Kaneohe Bay lost all but a few. Concurrent with the airfield bombings was the two-pronged attack on the U.S. Pacific fleet. Fortunately for the United States, none of its aircraft carriers was in port that morning. The Japanese did, however, manage to inflict considerable damage to all eight of the battleships at Pearl Harbor, sinking five of them. By 8:00 a.m. Pearl Harbor was ablaze as a combination of torpedoes and armor-piercing bombs hit one U.S. vessel after another. Especially spectacular was the explosion aboard the USS Arizona that resulted in the deaths of 1,177 men. The Arizona memorial still stands to commemorate all military personnel who lost their lives in the attack on Pearl Harbor. A second wave of 167 more Japanese aircraft was launched approximately one hour after the first; 17 Zeros (fighter planes) targeted Kaneohe Naval Air Station, while 18 others attacked Wheeler Field and the Ewa Marine Corps air base. Some 54 high-level bombers divided into three groups to attack Ford Island, Kaneohe, and Hickam Field; 80 dive-bombers attacked Pearl Harbor, including the naval yard where the drydocked battleship Pennsylvania was hit along with several destroyers. Near the end of the second wave, three bombs hit the destroyer Shaw in dry dock, setting off a spectacular explosion. The Japanese suffered considerably more damage in the second wave than they had in the first, when they had caught the U.S. forces completely unaware; in all, Japanese losses included 29 planes, five midget submarines, and 55 men. The second and final wave of the attack was over by 9:45 a.m. Genda and Fuchida pressed for a follow-up attack, but the cautious Nagumo ordered the Japanese forces to withdraw. As a result, U.S. oil storage depots and repair facilities escaped relatively unscathed. All but three of the 19 ships damaged in the attack would eventually be returned to service, and it would take just six months for the U.S. armed forces to turn the strategic tables in the Pacific with the decisive Battle of Midway (June 3–7, 1942). Further reading: Arroyo, Ernest. Pearl Harbor. New York: Metrobooks, 2001; Department of the Navy. “Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941.” Available online. URL: www. Accessed April 2006; National Geographic. “Remembering Pearl Harbor.” Available online. URL: www. Accessed April 2006; van der Vat, Dan. Pearl Harbor: The Day of Infamy—An Illustrated History. New York: Basic Books, 2001; Weintraub, Stanley. Long Day’s Journey into War: December 7, 1941. New York: Dutton, 1991. Kathleen Ruppert Pentecostalism The Pentecostal movement burst onto the religious landscape during the 20th century as a major force within Christianity. Its adherents, scattered across many churches and denominations, came to number over half a billion worldwide, suddenly making it a Christian tradition second in size and scope only to the Roman Catholic Church. Some historians date the origins of the contemporary Pentecostal movement to January 1, 1901, when Agnes Ozman, under the teaching of Methodist preacher Charles F. Parham, “spoke in tongues” (glossolalia) at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas. This particular event convinced many that the supernatural gifts and powers associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and with the ministries of the early church in the book of Acts are still readily available to ordinary Christians who sincerely seek them. Similar teachings and manifestations gained wide attention from 1906 to 1913 during the Azusa Street Revival at the Apostolic Faith Mission in Los Angeles. William J. Seymour, an African-American Holiness preacher from Texas, was the prominent leader there. Numerous new Protestant denominations began to form as Pentecostalism spread, beginning with the Assemblies of God, the Pentecostal Church of God, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and the Open Bible Standard Churches. Still other young but established denominations such as the Church of God and the Church of God in Christ took on Pentecostal beliefs. What nearly all Pentecostal denominations shared was a conviction that Christian experience was incomplete without the sanctifying and empowering work of the Holy Spirit and that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is validated by the evidence of “speaking in tongues,” as well as by additional signs, including prophecy, visions, exorcism, and divine healing. As early as 1914 several within Pentecostalism began to proclaim “Oneness,” or “Jesus Only,” a somewhat modal view of the Trinity that allows for different manifestations of God but suggests that there is ultimately Pentecostalism 299 only one divine person. Oneness Pentecostalism typically insists upon rebaptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone rather than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Its relationship to other Pentecostal denominations and to traditional Christian bodies concerned with theological orthodoxy remains ambiguous and controversial at best, depending in part upon how its theological claims are understood. The Pentecostal movement was preceded by widespread, overlapping teachings among 19th-century evangelical Protestants about the need for a victorious “Higher Life” made possible by the fi lling of the Holy Spirit, about the importance of Holy Spirit crisis sanctifi cation to purify the believer from sin, and about Jesus Christ as Savior, Sanctifi er, Healer, and Coming King, thereby intertwining Christological and pneumatological emphases. Pentecostalism strongly affi rms all four of the latter themes as basic to the Christian life—Christian conversion, the Pentecostal work of the Holy Spirit who purifi es and empowers the Christian believer for service, divine healing, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ in power and great glory as a motive for holy living and missionary endeavors. Religious demographers now recognize a third type of Pentecostalism called the Neo-Charismatic movement. It actually consists of two or more rather distinct elements. One is the so-called Third Wave of evangelicals, who wholeheartedly affi rm supernatural signs yet who diligently attempt to avoid the ecclesiastical schisms, upheavals, and controversies that frequently accompanied the fi rst two waves. A much broader, more amorphous form of the Neo-Charismatic movement numerically dwarfs every other type of Pentecostalism. It consists of the many thousands of independent Christian groups and denominations that have sprung up across the modern world more or less independently from traditional Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant infl uences. Their founders often claim direct revelation from God by means of dreams or visions. Although these indigenous church bodies may prove diffi cult to classify, they are generally far closer to Pentecostal beliefs and practices than they are to other Christian traditions. Further reading: Burgess, Stanley M., ed. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Eduard M. Van Der Maas, assoc. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002; Dayton, Donald W. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Foreword by Martin E. Marty. Metuchen, NJ, and London: The Scarecrow Press, 1987; Hollenweger, Walter J. Pentecostalism: Origin and Developments Worldwide. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Timothy Paul Erdel phenomenology Phenomenology is the branch of philosophy that explores phenomena (observable, experiential events) and has principally been the concern of German philosophers and 20th-century French philosophers. There are three distinct phenomenological schools: the dialectical, transcendental, and existential, all of which continue to have currency today and were prominent in the development of philosophy throughout the 20th century. Phenomenology is a descriptive approach to philosophy: It describes the world and the function of the mind, rather than prescribing the correct way to do a thing, as ethics does. In his 1781 Critique of Pure Reason, perhaps the single most important text in Western philosophy, Immanuel Kant reacted to and rejected David Hume’s empiricist claim that all ideas, all thoughts, were derived from “impressions,” that is, from sensory experience. Classical metaphysics, Kant argued, could not have been derived from sensory experience, and so he distinguished between phenomena, events as we experience them and objects as we observe them, and noumena, which exist independent of our perception of them and which we cannot therefore experience. A phenomenon is a representation of a noumenon; the noumenon for Kant is important primarily as a limiter, something against which to contrast the phenomenon. Publishing several years after Kant’s death, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel challenged Kant’s noumenon/ phenomenon dichotomy, claiming in 1807’s Phenomenology of Spirit that suffi cient knowledge of phenomena can lead to complete apprehension of absolute truth. It was Hegel who coined the term phenomenology and who introduced the form of logic he called speculation and that is now referred to as Hegelian dialectics. Most of the discussion in phenomenology, though, has been between the transcendental and existential schools. Transcendental phenomenology begins with Edmund Husserl, whose mentor Franz Brentano had taught that all perception is fl awed and so, too, the conclusions drawn from it. For Brentano and Husserl, absolute truths were unreachable because the mind was a fl awed instrument; they recalled Hume in their description of 300 phenomenology consciousness as always “intentional.” Intentionality in this respect includes the notion that every thought, every idea or feeling, is focused on some physical object. In the 20th century, Martin Heidegger and the existential phenomenologists who followed him rejected Husserl’s phenomenology. Heidegger was interested in the history of philosophy and the gaps he saw in its conversation about the world, particularly its failure to address what it means to be. Altering the Husserl- Brentano model of intentionality, Heidegger said that consciousness is not simply “about” something, it is always caring about something. The experience of a thing is the feeling of that thing’s relevance and importance. By this time, phenomenology had become a concern to philosophers at large, not simply in the German schools. The French philosopher Henri Bergson wrote about perceptions of causality—a concern that had driven the works of Hume and Kant—and on the meaning of comedy and laughter; his infl uence on French philosophy combined with the growing interest in German phenomenology would shape much of the next century, from Jean-Paul Sartre to Michel Foucault to Jacques Derrida. Further reading: Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell, 1978; Husserl, Edmund. Logical Investigations. Oxford: Routledge, 2001; Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003. Bill Kte’pi Philippines, U.S. occupation of the In 1898 the United States acquired the Philippines as a result of the Spanish-American War, undertook a mission to prepare the Philippines for independence shortly thereafter, and succeeded in that task after World War II. Since then, the United States has had a “special relationship” with the Philippines, marked generally by warm relations and close economic, political, and social ties. The Philippine–United States War decided whether that country would gain its independence immediately, as some Filipinos asserted, or would gain its independence gradually through reform and nation building, as the U.S. government under President William McKinley and his successors argued. Throughout the periods of U.S. rule, World War II, and the independence of the Philippines, the two countries remained allies and had close bilateral relations, particularly in the areas of economic development of the Philippines, spreading democracy, expanding free trade, and combating international and regional terrorism. The facts that the United States remains the largest trading partner of the Philippines and that Filipinos are one of the largest Asian ethnic groups in the United States have fostered further ties. The social and political forces that compelled the United States to enter the Pacifi c world and the Philippines in particular stemmed from a variety of American interests: the popular compulsion to spread American culture, the desire to expand and to develop commercial relations, the economic goal of gaining access to raw materials and markets, and strategic objectives to increase national security. The outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898 placed the United States on a direct path toward major involvement in the Philippines. Aroused by allegations of Spanish aggression in its colony of Cuba, the disruption of U.S. trade with Cuba, and the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Bay, the United States went to war with Spain and conducted military operations in both the Caribbean and the Pacifi c theaters. In order to negate the sea power of the Spanish fl eet, Commodore George Dewey engaged the Spanish fl eet in Manila Bay and decisively defeated them. Following victories in the Caribbean over Spain and the arrival of 8,500 American troops in the Philippines, the Spanish authorities in the Philippines surrendered. On August 13 the U.S. fl ag fl ew triumphantly over Manila. The Treaty of Paris, signed by representatives of the United States and Spain on December 10, 1898, effectively ended the fi ghting between these two nations but left the question of rulership of the Philippines in some dispute. By the terms of the treaty, the United States gained possession of the Philippines as well as Cuba, Puerto Rico, and other island holdings in exchange for a payment of $20 million to Spain. Shortly after the acquisition of the Philippines by the United States, Filipino insurgents resisted the transfer of authority to the United States and claimed that the Philippines should immediately become independent. Emilio Aguinaldo, a patriotic and energetic revolutionary who had led his forces against Spain both before and during the Spanish-American War, turned his military prowess against the American occupiers and conducted a guerrilla war that used the dense jungles and diffi cult terrain against the American military. Although the U.S. military was not prepared to fi ght against guerrilla tactics, U.S. forces prevailed against the rebels, captured Aguinaldo, gained his allegiance, and effectively won the support of many Filipinos. Philippines, U.S. occupation of the 301 The United States, acting on information gained from the First Philippine Commission appointed by President McKinley in 1899, adopted a policy of “tutelage,” which aimed at preparing the Philippines for independence. In July 1901 the Philippine Constabulary was established as a countrywide police force for the purpose of maintaining order and suppressing the remaining rebel activities. The Second Philippine Commission, headed by William Taft, implemented broad economic, social, and political programs that expanded economic development and opportunity, free public education, and political representation of the Filipino people. Despite the successes, major obstacles to reform remained apparent, evidenced in the reluctance of the ilustrados, the wealthy aristocrats, who obstructed or reluctantly granted concessions to the lower classes. The emergence of a multiparty system and the indigenous political leadership of Manuel Quezon and Sergio Osmena indicated the growing independence of the Philippines. In 1913, the U.S. Congress passed the Underwood Tariff Act, which removed all trade restrictions on Philippine goods, an act that provided valuable markets for the Philippines but also allowed a high degree of economic dependency. The Tydings-McDuffi e Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1934, established the Philippines as a commonwealth with a constitution, an autonomous political system, and most importantly a 10-year period during which the Philippines would make the transition to independence. The agreement was approved by the Philippine legislature, even though it allowed the United States considerable authority in matters pertaining to foreign policy, immigration, foreign trade, and currency regulation. On December 8, 1941, the Japanese army invaded the Philippines and disrupted the transitory period. General Douglas MacArthur led American and Philippine military forces. MacArthur fell back to the Bataan Peninsula and the island of Corregidor to take a defensive position against the advancing Japanese army, which outnumbered MacArthur’s troops. The defeat of his troops in April and May 1942 allowed the Japanese to force the 80,000 prisoners of war taken at Bataan to march to a prison camp 105 kilometers to the north. This death march caused approximately 10,000 fatalities as prisoners faced abuses, malnutrition, disease, and the harsh tropical climate. MacArthur, under orders from U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, evacuated to Australia, vowing to return again to the Philippines. On October 20, 1944, MacArthur led his forces back to the Philippines, landing at the island of Leyte. Fierce fi ghting followed that eventually led to the capitulation of Japanese forces after defeats in Northern Luzon and a last-ditch effort to defend the city of Manila. After World War II the U.S. government faced the diffi cult task of aiding the Philippines in its recovery from the war. Despite contention regarding the issue of collaboration with the Japanese and political amnesty, on July 4, 1946, the Philippines became independent, and Manuel Roxas emerged as the fi rst president of that republic. During the early years of the cold war, the period of renewed tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States, the Philippines proved to be a valuable ally of the United States. Manila signed the Military Bases Agreement in 1947 and thereby granted to U.S. naval and air forces base rights to 23 bases including Clark Air Base and naval facilities at Subic Bay. In addition to allowing U.S. access to bases, the Philippines played an active role in the containment of communism, both in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia. In 1954 the government of the Philippines joined the South East Asia Treaty Organization, a collective security arrangement led by the United States to secure democracies in the region and to contain the expansion of the communist movement. Philippine president Ramon Magsaysay won the praise of many Americans for his bold leadership, economic reforms, and effective anticommunist policies, which subdued the Huks—a Marxist-Leninist organization that revolted against the government of Manila and demanded collectivization of farms. The post–cold war era brought new challenges and new opportunities for partnership in U.S.- Philippine relations. The United States and the Philippines worked together to fi ght terrorism, expand global trade, and develop regional trade organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The U.S. Congress has taken a keen interest in the stability of the Philippines for its own good, its role as a regional ally, and its regional infl uence on developing democracies such as Indonesia. Further reading: Davis, Leonard. Revolutionary Struggle in the Philippines. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989; Jones, Gregg R. Red Revolution: Inside the Philippine Guerrilla Movement. Boulder, CO, and London: Westview Press, 1989; May, R. J., and Francisco Nemenzo, eds. The Philippines after Marcos. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985; Mercado, Monina Allarey, ed. People Power: An Eyewitness History of 302 Philippines, U.S. occupation of the the Philippine Revolution of 1986. New York: Tenth Avenue Editions, 1986. Scott Catino Platt Amendment The United States occupied Cuba in 1898 and passed the Platt Amendment in 1901. A condition for ending the U.S. occupation of Cuba was the inclusion of an amendment that made Cuba a protectorate of the United States. Although the Cuban constitutional convention delegates opposed the inclusion of the amendment, the United States was adamant, and it had armed forces on Cuba and warships available offshore. Given the choice between limited independence and no independence at all, Cuba accepted the Platt Amendment. Senator Orville Platt (1827–1905) of Connecticut, a pro-U.S. nationalist expansionist who advocated high protective tariffs and helped to annex Hawaii and occupy the Philippines, authored the Platt Amendment, which was the brainchild of Secretary of State Elihu Root. The Platt Amendment was a rider to the Army Appropriations Bill of 1901. It provided that Cuba must have U.S. consent for all Cuban trade agreements and treaties with any other nation. It also gave the United States the right to intervene in Cuban affairs to preserve Cuban independence and maintain a government suffi cient to preserve life, liberty, and property. It remained in effect until abrogated in 1934. As well as stipulating the terms under which the United States could intervene in Cuban affairs, the amendment also authorized U.S. lease of land for a naval base and prohibited Cuban transfer of land to any other nation. The amendment made Cuba a virtual U.S. protectorate. The Teller Amendment of 1898 had stated that the United States did not intend to annex Cuba after the Spanish-American War. U.S expansionists worried that German expansionists might seize the opportunity to harm U.S. interests by fi lling the void left by U.S. disinterest in the area. The Platt Amendment compromised between outright imperialism and the repudiation of the Teller Amendment. The compromise prevented Cuba from making treaties, assuming debt, or stopping the U.S. sanitation program on the island. It guaranteed the United States the right to intervene in Cuban affairs whenever the United States deemed U.S. interests were at stake. Additionally, because the United States had sought to control Guantánamo Bay, Cuba’s best harbor, since 1899, it allowed the United States to lease sites for naval and coaling stations. Thomas Estrada Palma, an advocate of the annexation of Cuba to the United States, took power in a 1902 Cuban election characterized by fraud and abuse of his position. Estrada Palma’s term expired in 1905, but he attempted to return to power. Rebels dissatisfi ed with the Cuban government and the U.S. involvement in Cuba resisted Estrada Palma. To thwart the liberal revolt, Theodore Roosevelt sent in troops on September 29, 1906. The revolt ended in a negotiated peace and reoccupation of Cuba. The United States occupied Cuba militarily in 1906 under the terms of the Platt Agreement, remaining there for three years. The United States removed Cubans from government during its occupation. U.S. forces left in 1909 but returned in 1912. Another occupation lasted from 1917 until 1933. Throughout the life of the Platt Amendment, in the interest of maintaining Cuban stability the United States refused to recognize any revolutionary government and sent warships to Cuban waters as necessary. In 1934 circumstances had changed. Cuban nationalism was rising, and Cubans were increasingly critical of the U.S. dominance of their society. The United States was preoccupied with the Great Depression. In addition, Franklin Roosevelt had instituted a Good Neighbor Policy toward Latin America. Thus, the United States and Cuba signed a treaty abrogating the Platt Amendment. However, the United States retained its naval base at Guantánamo. Further reading: Mellen, Jim. The Platt Amendment. Available online. URL: html. Accessed June 2006; Perez, Louis. The War of 1898. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998; Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. John H. Barnhill Porfi riato The Porfi riato corresponds to the period in which Porfi rio Díaz served as president of Mexico from 1876 to 1880 and from 1884 to 1911. The origins of Porfi rio Díaz’s political power can be traced to his participation in the military and political battles of the 1850s and 1860s. Díaz embraced liberalism as the ideological foundation of his regime. Inspired by the American Porfiriato 303 and French Revolutions, he aimed to establish a federal republic where democratic institutions would represent an egalitarian and secular society. Nevertheless, he was to build his career through an incipient patronage network, starting with the local priest’s recommendation that he be accepted in the local Catholic seminary school in Oaxaca. During the Mexican-American War in 1847, 16- year-old Díaz joined the army to help repel the invasion but in the end did not engage in combat. Soon after, he met Benito Juárez, already an elected governor of Oaxaca, who inspired him to study law. However, the military coup that restored the fl amboyant and corrupt dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna to power to undertake his 11th—and fi nal—term in offi ce caused Díaz to abandon his studies again to join the resistance. In March 1854 a group of dissidents met in Ayutla, Guerrero, to plot the downfall of Santa Anna. CALL FOR OUSTER There the group launched the Plan de Ayutla, a manifesto calling for the ouster of Santa Anna. News of the plan spread throughout Mexico, and soon the country was in open revolt. Juárez and Díaz, who were sent into exile by Santa Anna, returned to Mexico and eagerly joined in the insurrection. Santa Anna fl ed the country in August 1855, and Álvarez took over as provisional president. Juárez became minister of justice, and Díaz, only 25, was named subprefect of the town of Ixtlán in Nayarit. A new constitution was adopted on February 5, 1857, containing provisions restricting the power of the church. These infuriated clerics and conservatives, and thus began the bloody Reform War of 1858–61, so named because of the “Reform Laws” that were so objectionable to fervent Catholics. During both the Reform War and the 1864–67 war against Maximilian and the French intervention, Díaz distinguished himself as a strong right arm of the liberal cause. He was wounded twice, escaped being captured three times, and during 1864–67 led forces that infl icted nine defeats on the imperialists. When caught by Maximilian’s forces, he refused a pardon and then made a daredevil escape from jail in 1865, after which he became a liberal hero. As Maximilian’s empire collapsed, Díaz commanded a formidable army, which on July 15, 1867, made its triumphal entry into Mexico City. After running for the presidency in 1867—and losing to Juárez—Díaz went back to Oaxaca to cultivate sugarcane in his “La Noria” hacienda. While his brother served as governor in Oaxaca, and Porfi rio Díaz concentrated on regaining political power, he crafted the La Noria insurrection plan, which defi ed Juárez’s government and initiated an uprising anticipating the presidential elections of 1871. However, the La Noria plot did not succeed, and the insurrection was suffocated in a few months. After Benito Juárez’s sudden death in 1872, interim president Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada granted amnesty to rebellious Porfi ristas to gain political control over the country. Tejada ruled for a short period since he failed to see the implications of reducing federal autonomy to the states and for pursuing reelection again. Along with the social uprising, the supreme court’s president, José María Iglesias, advocated for the reestablishment of the rule of law and the legitimacy of democratic elections and headed for the presidency. Nevertheless, his refusal to share power with the Porfi ristas led Díaz to occupy the capital as the head of the “constitutional army.” Porfi rio Díaz took offi ce in 1876 and assumed as his fi rst endeavor to “pacify” the country after so much revolt. However, his methods of establishing the Porfi rian Pax were grounded on intimidation, coercion, and repression strategies. Another factor that contributed to establishing order as the basis for progress was the systematization of daily life through various civil, judicial, and commercial codes and regulations. ANOTHER TERM When his fi rst presidential term ended in 1880, Díaz went back to Oaxaca to become governor and a cabinet minister, while his friend General Manuel González was elected president. González rewarded his friends and was on good terms with others, gaining political support in his own right. He had the constitution amended to allow Díaz to be elected to another term. In 1884 the Central Railway was completed, connecting Mexico to the United States. President González recognized Mexican debts to Great Britain, an action that proved to be essential to the country’s establishing good credit. There was substantial economic development under González, but he left the presidency under suspicion of extended corruption. With the constitution amended to allow his reelection, Díaz returned to save the nation from the misrule of González and was reelected president in 1880 and would remain until 1911. Under Díaz’s rule infrastructure and public works spread all over the country, multiplying the rail system, telegraphs, and other communications networks, which built Díaz’s image as the builder of a progressive and modern Mexico. The regime also supported the creation of primary and secondary schools, where the values of patriotism, 304 Porfiriato order, freedom, and progress were to be cultivated. However, technical and professional education was not prioritized, as if progress would not require specialized skills in order to be achieved. It was with external fi nancial resources that Díaz stimulated the internal market through industrial development, while mining extraction was intended for the external market’s demand. However, it is worth stating that agriculture never kept the pace of development at large, even when the 6,000 hacienda owners were favored by the regime, which favored feudal practices that allowed the formation of huge concentrations of land. Moreover, inequity was refl ected in every area of society, as in professional education, which was concentrated in a few major cities. So eager was Díaz to attract foreign capital that he adopted discriminating policies for Mexican mining employees, which later accounted for a major strike—which was ruthlessly suppressed—at the Cananea Consolidated Mining Company in Sonora. Díaz also cleverly played one side against the other, encouraging British and European capital as a counterbalance to U.S. capital. The end of Díaz’s regime (1904–11) was marked by foreign investments fl owing into the country, which fostered the production of goods and services. Likewise, the oil industry grew from 5,000 to 8 million annual barrels by the fi rst decade of the 20th century. However, at the time a growing critique by young, middle-class intellectuals started to manifest. This group was headed by Camilo Arriaga, Juan Sarabia, and the Flores Magón brothers and started to craft an antireelection campaign. Even when the repression of opposition leaders was a priority, Díaz was serene enough to supervise the Centenario celebration (the 100-year anniversary of independence); to attend the inauguration of public works, schools, hospitals, and monuments; and even to lead parades. Two months later Francisco Madero led an uprising that marked the beginning of a decade-long revolutionary civil war and through the Plan de San Luis proclaimed the nonreelection of Díaz. After several months of insurrection, Porfi rio Díaz resigned and headed for exile in France, where he died some years later. During the Porfi riato, progress materialized in infrastructures and communications within major cities. However, the economy became totally dependent on the United States due to major investments in industries. Foreign domination extended over technical and economic domains, contrasting with the profound patriotism that Juárez, Lerdo, and Díaz professed. During the liberal age nationalistic propaganda succeeded in transmitting to the general public a national sense and a conscience that bonded race, history, and territory within a cultural symbolism that defi ned national identity for years to come. See also Latin American modernism; Latin American nationalism. Further reading: Benjamin, Thomas, and William McNellie, eds. Other Mexicos: Essays on Regional Mexican History, 1876–1911. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984; Cosío Villegas, Daniel. “The Porfi riato: Legend & Reality.” In Mexico, edited by D. Raat. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982; Katz, Friedrich. “México: Restored Republic & Porfi riato, 1867–1910.” In Cambridge History of Latin America, edited by L. Bethell. London: Cambridge, 1986; Vanderwood, Paul J. Disorder & Progress: Bandits, Police, & Mexican Development. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981; Wasserman, Mark. Everyday Life & Politics in 19th C. Mexico: Men, Women & War. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2001; Weiner, Richard. Race, Nation, & Market: Economic Culture in Porfi rian Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2004. Alfonso Valenzuela Aguilera Portsmouth, Treaty of (1905) The Treaty of Portsmouth of September 1905 marked the end of the Russo-Japanese War and was the fi rst international treaty to be signed in the United States. It ended a war that had occurred because of the colliding ambitions of the Russians and the newly industrialized Japanese in the Far East. Russia saw Manchuria, part of the crumbling Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty of China, as ripe for expansion. Port Arthur offered a port that could be used all year and the opportunity to build a railroad. The Russians also had designs on Korea and had received territorial concessions from the Chinese. From Japan’s point of view, Manchuria also seemed ripe for development, and Japan believed that Korea should be part of its sphere of infl uence. Russia also had gained control of part of China, which Japan had been forced to give up after the recent Sino-Japanese War. Japan initiated hostilities in March of 1904 by attacking Russian forces in Korea and later in Manchuria and besieging Port Arthur. The result of these battles and other actions was a string of Japanese victories. Though Russia could call upon more troops, the Japanese possessed far better equipment and weapons. In fact, many regard this confl ict as a laboratory of the Portsmouth, Treaty of (1905) 305 kind of combat that would occur in World War I a few years later. At sea the Japanese also inflicted severe losses on the Russian navy. Having found that their Far Eastern fleet had been sunk by the Japanese at Port Arthur, a large Russian fleet arrived in the area from Europe in May 1905 at the Battle of Tsushima Straits, met the Japanese fleet, and suffered a disastrous defeat. Many Russian capital ships were destroyed with high loss of life. This was the first great naval contest involving the new super battleships. The Japanese had defeated the Russians, the first victory of an Asiatic power over a European, but they were in desperate financial shape. The moment was at hand for peace. The peace treaty was brokered by U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. Interestingly, Roosevelt never attended any of the sessions. Portsmouth, a pleasant New Hampshire city, was chosen as the site of the negotiations, and a number of the delegates stayed at a local resort, Wentworth by the Sea. The talks took place at the Portsmouth Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, for the sake of security. During their time off, the delegates mingled with Portsmouth citizens. The delegations were headed by Serge Witte for Russia and Jutaro Komura for Japan. The negotiations stopped a number of times when the two sides disagreed but finally came to a conclusion brought about through compromise and through Roosevelt’s intervention. According to the treaty, Russia conceded that Korea was in the Japanese orbit and that Russia should withdraw from southern Manchuria, leaving it under symbolic Chinese control. In addition, the Russian right to build the South Manchurian Railway was handed over to Japan, as well as Liaodong (Liaotung) Peninsula and Port Arthur at its southern tip, along with the southern part of Sakhalin Island. The Japanese also received fishing rights near the Russian coast. Both Russia and Japan were dissatisfied with 306 Portsmouth, Treaty of (1905) Members of the Japanese delegation, Jutaro Komura and Kogoro Takahira, arrive for negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth, which ended the war between Russia and Japan in 1905. Theodore Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the peace. the results, and there were riots in Japan. Nonetheless, the treaty did mark Japan’s emergence as a power in the Far East. Further reading: Michiko, Nakanishi. Heroes and Friends: Behind the Scenes at the Treaty of Portsmouth. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall Publisher, 2005. Marc Schwarz Prestes, Luís Carlos (1898–1990) Brazilian revolutionary One of the leading Communists in Brazil, Louís Carlos Prestes has been regarded by many as one of Brazil’s most charismatic yet tragic fi gures for his leadership of the 1924 tenente revolt and his subsequent work with the Brazilian Communist movement. Prestes was born on January 3, 1898, at Porto Alegre, a port 400 kilometers from the Uruguayan border, and attended the Escola Militar in Rio de Janeiro. As a cadet he had a brilliant academic record but led the 1924 revolt against the government, forming what became known as the Prestes Column, a guerrilla group that sought to overthrow President Artur da Silva Bernardes. It was an attempt to overthrow the oligarchy that had entrenched itself in power after the declaration of Brazil as a republic in 1889. Unfortunately for Prestes, he was ill with typhoid on the day of the revolt, and the defeated rebels fl ed to Bahia. The Communists fought 56 battles and also negotiated treaties with Indian tribes, and, when the Brazilian army moved against them, Prestes led what became known as Brazil’s equivalent of the Chinese Long March. They escaped from the soldiers and managed to get to the south of Brazil, resettling in the remote area along the Bolivian border. After operating there for three years, they moved into Bolivia, where they were interned. Prestes, however, managed to escape to Buenos Aires. The revolt was to foreshadow the 1930 revolution, which ended the “Old Republic” of Brazil, with Getúlio Vargas becoming provisional president. Becoming increasingly infl uenced by communism, Prestes went into exile, by now totally disenchanted with Vargas. In Argentina and Uruguay Prestes met with Marxists in Buenos Aires and Montevideo and then was contacted by Comintern offi cials, who persuaded him to go to the Soviet Union, where he was named the Comintern representative for the Brazilian Communist Party (PCB). In 1935 Prestes and his German wife, Olga Benária, returned to Brazil in secret, and the two worked for a popular front that was known as the Aliança Nacional Libertadora (National Liberation Alliance). By now Vargas was strongly anticommunist and used the Brazilian congress to legislate against the Communists—in 1937 Vargas was to close the parliament down. He was seen as becoming increasingly profascist, and the police uncovered Prestes’s network and arrested the couple in late 1935. Olga, who was pregnant, was deported to Germany as a foreign alien. Because she was Jewish, she was jailed after her return to Germany and died in a concentration camp. Prestes was found guilty of sedition and sentenced to 17 years in jail. After his release Prestes started organizing the newly legalized Brazilian Communist Party. He saw that Vargas was an opportunist who had supported fascism during the 1930s but was now embracing liberal democracy in an attempt to win favor with the United States. Many Brazilian Communists despaired of Prestes, who was seen as working with Vargas for concessions. When asked why he could support the man who had his wife deported, Prestes replied that he felt that he should not allow personal disputes to get in the way of his attempt for social reform. In 1945 Prestes contested the presidency in the elections and on December 2, 1945, was elected to the Brazilian senate for the Federal District. However, two months earlier, Vargas had been deposed, and the military set about trying to stop Communist political infl uence in the country. Two years later the PCB was again outlawed, and Prestes returned to his earlier life of organizing secretly. He died on March 7, 1990. Further reading: Gunther, John. Inside Latin America. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1942; Picard, Roger, ed. The Trial of Luiz Carlos Prestes. Paris: International Association of Jurisprudence, 1936. Justin Corfi eld progressivism, U.S. The progressive movement is best viewed as a series of shifting coalitions motivated by the problems caused by rapid industrialization in the United States. The composition of these coalitions varied on federal and state levels and from region to region, and progressive reform was not specifi cally connected to either of the major progressivism, U.S. 307 political parties. What distinguished progressive reform was the movement’s belief in the importance of professional expertise. Progressives understood that government could be an agent of positive change, believed that environment is the key to social behavior, and relied on statistics to support their causes. Progressive reform was initially directed toward the problems of urban life. The growth of the suburbs took the wealthy away from the cities, which were increasingly populated by people who in many cases spoke a different language and proved impervious to Protestant conversion efforts. Reform efforts were geographically centered in the cities of the East, Midwest, and West and attracted support from agrarian Midwesterners and the moderate wing of southern populism. Progressive reformers were inspired by thoughts of cultural nationalism and the perfectibility of society. They accepted industrialism but were critical of its oppressive aspects. The movement was publicized by a group of journalists termed the muckrakers, a group of moderate men and women who exposed problems caused by industrial capitalism but did not intend to propose radical remedies for the problems they exposed. Politically, progressivism occupied the center of the U.S. political spectrum. At the state level, governors like Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California were able to implement reforms that placed democracy in the hands of the people and took it away from corporations that appeared to control state politics. Progressives urged the use of and in many states passed laws that adopted the secret ballot and implemented direct primaries, the initiative, referendums, recalls of elected offi cials, and direct election of senators. They also formed commissions to regulate utilities and railroads; they restricted lobbying and raised corporate taxes. To correct the worst features of industrialization, progressives advocated worker compensation, child labor laws, minimum wage and maximum hours legislation, and widows’ pensions. Progressivism entered national politics via the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who became president after the assassination of William McKinley in 1900. He was conservative in outlook but feared the excessive power of corporate wealth and the danger of working-class radicalism. He became the undisputed spokesman for national progressivism. Roosevelt gained a reputation as a “trustbuster” when in 1904 the Supreme Court ruled that Northern Securities Company had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. In 1903 Congress created the Bureau of Corporations, housed in the Department of Commerce, to publicize and investigate the behavior of giant companies. In 1906 Roosevelt signed both the Pure Food and Drug Act, which empowered the Department of Agriculture to fi ne and imprison producers found selling adulterated or misbranded goods, and the Meat Inspection Act, which sent federal inspectors into packinghouses to prevent bad meat from coming to market. Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, was unable to hold the progressive and the conservative wings of the Republican Party together, leading Roosevelt to run as the presidential candidate of the Progressive Party, or Bull Moose Party, in 1912. Both Roosevelt and Taft lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who himself was sympathetic to progressive reform. Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which reorganized the monetary system of the country, and in 1914 he signed both the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which strengthened government’s ability to regulate corporations. In 1916 Wilson signed the Keating-Owen Act, which prohibited the sale of products made using child labor. Progressivism also had a religious aspect, known as the Social Gospel, an attempt by mainstream Protestantism to restore some of its lost authority and social prestige through a sort of secular leadership. It hinged on the belief that every Christian had a dual obligation to self and to society and combined a critique of individualism with a commitment to social justice and reform. This was signifi cant because by the beginning of the 20th century, many Americans looked to science rather than to faith for expertise on problems of the day. World War I redirected the energy of progressive reformers, and the Republican administrations of the 1920s had no interest in reviving the movement. Its reforms persisted into the 21st century, but many of the social initiatives favored by progressives were not enacted until the New Deal. Further reading: Diner, Steven J. A Very Different Age: Americans of the Progressive Era. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998; Flanagan, Maureen. America Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890s–1920s. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007; McGerr, Michael E. A Fierce Discontent: Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870–1920. New York: Free Press, 2003. David Miller Parker 308 progressivism, U.S. Prohibition (North America) A century of antialcohol agitation paid off in the early 20th century when the United States and most Canadian provinces passed laws against the sale and use of alcoholic beverages ranging from weak beer to high-proof whiskey. Enacted in the aftermath of World War I, the United States’ “noble experiment” in nationwide alcohol prohibition proved highly controversial and was repealed in 1933. As in the United States, Canadian restrictions on liquor intensifi ed during World War I, but most were revised or repealed by 1930. Advocates of Prohibition both responded to and benefi ted from the social turmoil of late 19th- and early 20th-century America. As immigrants, many of them Jewish and Roman Catholic, fl ooded into rapidly expanding cities, the anti-immigrant, antiurban, and antisaloon tendencies of Protestant, small-town America and Canada intensifi ed. Business titans like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Henry Ford supported Prohibition in the interest of the industries’s need for sober machine operators. One effective tool used by Prohibition supporters was local option, allowing towns, counties, or entire states to limit or eliminate the consumption of alcohol. By 1915, more than half of all Americans were already living under Prohibition statutes; 18 states were entirely “dry,” as were parts of many others, predominantly in the South, Midwest, and West. Prohibitionists used World War I to crusade against breweries, many owned by German Americans. They cited the need to divert grain supplies from making beer to baking bread for troops fi ghting in Europe. Congress approved the Eighteenth Amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor in December 1917; it became law on January 29, 1920. The federal Volstead Act provided guidelines for enforcement. It defi ned “intoxicating liquors” as containing 0.5 percent or more alcohol; alcohol for industrial, religious, and medicinal use was allowed, as were grape beverages like Vine-Glo that were prepared at home. From the beginning, enforcement proved diffi cult. There were many loopholes and too few federal agents to cover the coastlines. Smugglers were extremely successful at importing booze from Mexico, the Caribbean, and, ironically, Canada, where Prohibition restrictions were looser, and almost nonexistent in Quebec. Ships fi lled with liquor anchored outside the threemile international limit and awaited speedy bootlegging rumrunners who returned to the mainland with an illegal cargo bound for “speakeasies” and “blind pigs” catering to women as well as men. President Warren G. Harding kept liquor in the White House. Other Americans who relished a drink brewed moonshine or bathtub gin; ill-tasting concoctions were mixed with fruity juices to create cocktails. Tainted alcohol, intended for industrial use or “spiked” with derivatives like nerve gas, caused blindness, paralysis, or death. Despite Prohibition’s mounting problems, in the 1928 presidential election, which pitted “dry” Republican Herbert Hoover against “wet” New York Democrat Alfred E. Smith, the U.S. dry heartland voted overwhelmingly for Hoover. Historians argue about the actual impact of Prohibition on drinking habits and law enforcement. In cities like New York, Detroit, and Chicago, where the dry crusade had never taken hold, illegal drinking probably exceeded pre-Prohibition levels. But there is compelling evidence that overall arrests for drunkenness and hospitalizations for alcoholism declined in the 1920s. In Canada, too, although illegal alcohol production soared, there were fewer reports of public intoxication and associated criminal behavior. Critics of Prohibition certainly had much to complain about, including the proliferation of gangsters like Al Capone and the Purple Gang, along with increased governmental corruption and general disrespect for laws. Criminalizing brewing and distilling, a huge formerly legal industry, meant loss of tax revenues and jobs. In Michigan, the fi rst state to ratify Prohibition, German-American beer maker Julius Stroh kept his workers employed making ice cream in what had been his brewery. Civil libertarians decried Prohibition’s encroachment on states’ rights and individual freedoms. By the early 1930s many formerly dry business leaders A police raid in Washington, D.C. With the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment, alcohol became illegal in the United States. Prohibition (North America) 309 were opposing Prohibition’s heavy-handed and unsuccessful focus on law enforcement. Franklin D. Roosevelt made repeal of Prohibition a campaign issue in the 1932 election. By April 1933 the newly elected president had persuaded Congress to quickly allow beer with 3.2 percent alcohol, while Congress initiated the Twenty-fi rst Amendment repealing the Eighteenth. By December Prohibition was no more. Enforcement of liquor policies and restrictions was mostly returned to the states. For a while some continued Prohibition as a statewide policy; today jurisdiction tends to be at the local level, and dry counties still exist. Further reading: Allsop, Kenneth. The Bootleggers and Their Era. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961; Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1973; Lender, Mark Edward, and James Kirby Martin. Drinking in America: A History. Rev. ed. New York: The Free Press, 1987. John M. Mayernik 310 Prohibition (North America) 311 Quezon, Manuel (1878–1944) Philippine president Manuel Quezon was the oldest child of Spanish mestizo parents living in the small town of Baler on the east coast of Luzon island. At nine the young Quezon was sent to San Juan de Letran College, where he completed his secondary education and fi nished his bachelor of arts degree. He then went on to the University of Santo Tomás to study law. In 1899, Quezon interrupted his studies to join Emilio Aguinaldo in the nationalist struggle against the United States, which had gained the Philippines from Spain after the Spanish-American War. After Aguinaldo surrendered to the United States in 1901, Quezon returned to law school and passed the Philippine bar in 1903. He subsequently set up his own law fi rm in his home province of Tayabas. Quezon’s populist leanings were evident in the way he made wealthy clients pay high fees while he provided free legal services to the poor. Quezon entered politics in 1905 when he ran for the offi ce of provincial governor in Tayabas. Two years later he won a seat in the newly created Philippine assembly. He became the majority fl oor leader, with Sergio Osmena from Cebu as speaker. This marked the beginning of a long political collaboration with Osmena. The next year Quezon and Osmena established the Nacionalista Party, although Osmena remained its recognized leader through the early 1920s. Quezon traveled outside the Philippines during this period, attending the International Congress of Navigation in St. Petersburg in 1908, visiting New York, and lunching with President Theodore Roosevelt. In 1909, the Philippine assembly elected Quezon resident commissioner to the United States. He would hold this post for the next seven years. During this time he learned English and focused his energies on winning independence for the Philippines. By the time he returned to the Philippines in 1916, his efforts had helped lead to the passage of the Philippine Autonomy Act, commonly known as the Jones Act. The Jones Act led to a reorganization of the Philippine legislature on the U.S. model and opened up new avenues for Quezon’s political advancement. In 1916, having fi rst won a senate seat, he was elected president of the senate by his fellow senators, a position he held until 1935. Exploiting the preamble of the Jones Act and inspired by the rhetoric of President Woodrow Wilson, Quezon led a team to Washington, D.C., in 1919 to lobby for independence. A new presidential administration in the United States in the post–World War I period doomed Quezon’s mission. In 1934 Quezon returned from yet another mission to the United States after the passage of the Tydings- McDuffi e Act by the U.S. Congress, which created a 10-year transitional Philippine Commonwealth prior to full independence. The following year Quezon was elected president of the commonwealth, with Osmena as his vice president. Q 312 Quezon, Manuel In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved Quezon’s request for the assignment of General Douglas MacArthur to help create a Philippine army as the country prepared itself for eventual independence in 1946. Quezon and MacArthur had a long-standing relationship dating back to 1903. In fact, in 1929 Quezon had lobbied hard for MacArthur to succeed Henry Stimson as governor-general of the Philippines. Quezon named MacArthur fi eld marshal and military adviser to the Filipino president. In November 1941, as the threat of war loomed, Quezon was reelected president, with Osmena as his vice president. A month later the Japanese military swept into Southeast Asia and invaded the Philippines. Quezon and Osmena were evacuated to Corregidor, from which they were taken to the United States. In Washington, D.C., Quezon and Osmena established a commonwealth government in exile. Manuel Quezon would not return to the Philippines. He became bedridden by the tuberculosis that had plagued him for years and died in Saranac Lake, New York, on August 1, 1944. He was survived by his widow, Aurora Aragon Quezon, and his three children. His body was carried back to the Philippines and interred at the Manila North Cemetery. It was then moved to the Quezon Memorial Circle in Quezon City. Further reading: Bananal, Eduardo. Men at the Helm. Manila, Philippines: National Book Store, 1980; Steinberg, David Joel. The Philippines: A Singular and a Plural Place. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2000; Tarling, Nicholas, ed. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Part 2, Vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Soo Chun Lu

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Pakistan People’s Party The Pakistan People’s Party was founded by Berkeleyand Oxford-educated politician and lawyer Zulfikar Bhutto. During the presidency of General Ayub Khan, Bhutto served as a cabinet member and eventually as foreign minister. Ayub went to war with India over Kashmir in 1965, and eventually, with the intervention of the Soviet Union, signed the Tashkent Agreement, which restored prewar boundaries and diplomatic relations between the two countries. Bhutto opposed Ayub’s signing of the Tashkent Agreement, resigned his post, and formed the Pakistan People’s Party in 1967. The People’s Party championed the causes of socialism and democracy and denounced the Ayub regime as a dictatorship. Bhutto’s countrywide campaign against Ayub also drew support from businessmen, small factory owners, students, and rural dwellers. Under the pressure of mounting public unrest, Ayub resigned in 1969 and handed over power to General Yahya Khan. When elections were held in 1970, the People’s Party captured a majority of votes in West Pakistan, whereas a clear majority was won in East Pakistan by the Awami League of Sheik Mujibur Rahman. While the Awami League promoted greater autonomy for East Pakistan, the People’s Party argued for a strong centralized government. Differences between the two parties, and General Yahya’s inability to play a neutral role in the conflict, led to civil war. In 1971 East Pakistan seceded to become Bangladesh, and the People’s Party formed a government in Pakistan. In power, the People’s Party stood for the nationalization of industry and education and for land reform. At the same time, Bhutto drafted the country’s fourth constitution, according to which he gave himself the title of prime minister, reduced the president to a figurehead, and granted himself powers that were as broad as those held by the military dictator whom he had opposed. Factionalism within the People’s Party, accusations of preferential politics, a tribal uprising in Baluchistan over the exploitation of local resources such as natural gas, and underrepresentation of Baluchis in the structures of the state undermined Bhutto’s government. The deaths of thousands in the uprising in Baluchistan, oppressive measures taken by Bhutto against political opponents, and accusations of having rigged the elections of 1977 led to a military coup by the army chief of staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Bhutto was tried for orchestrating the murder of a political opponent, found guilty, and hanged on April 4, 1979. The leadership of the People’s Party was assumed by his daughter, Benazir Bhutto. After General Zia was killed in a plane crash, rumoured to be sabotage, the People’s Party came to power under Benazir Bhutto in the elections of 1988. However, her government was short-lived, she was arrested, and her government dissolved by Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the president at the time. The People’s Party next came to power in 1993, but the government was again short-lived; violence between ethnic and linguistic groups erupted frequently in Karachi, the government lost control of the urban P center, and a power struggle between Benazir Bhutto and her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto led to divisions within the party. In 1996, during his sister’s tenure as prime minister, Murtaza Bhutto was shot dead outside his residence in a police encounter. Opposition leaders accused the People’s Party of state terrorism against its political opponents, and the government was dismissed in 1996 again under charges of mismanagement and corruption. Benazir Bhutto continued to head the party in exile and upon her return to Pakistan in 2007. After her assaisination on December 27, her husband and 19-year-old son were appointed party co-chairmen. Further reading: Baxter, Craig, Yogendra K. Malik, Charles H. Kennedy, and Robert C. Oberst. Government and Politics in South Asia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002; Cohen, Stephen Phillip. The Idea of Pakistan. Washington, D.C. The Brookings Institution, 2004; Jones, Phillip E. The Pakistan People’s Party: Rise to Power. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 2003. Taymiya R. Zaman Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964 under Ahmed Shukairy to represent Palestinian national demands for self-determination. In 1964 the Palestine National Council (PNC, or parliament) of 350 representatives met in East Jerusalem and voted on the Palestine National Charter, or declaration of independence, that declared historic Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs. The charter has been amended several times. In 1968 the charter added that “armed struggle is the only way to l iberate Palestine.” In 1988 the PLO under Yasir Arafat’s orders agreed to drop the use of terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and essentially accept the establishment of the independent state of Palestine in the Occupied Territories of the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank—the so-called mini-state solution. Although some Palestinian groups opposed Arafat on these issues—the changes were agreed upon by the Palestine National Council, dominated by pro-Fatah Arafat supporters. Fatah (the Palestine National Liberation Movement) continued to dominate the PLO until 2006. After the Arab defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Shukairy stepped down as chairman of the PLO, and Yasir Arafat, the leader of Fatah, the largest guerrilla group, was elected chairman. Arafat remained the leader of the Palestinian national movement until his death in 2004. The PLO constantly struggled to remain independent from any Arab government and often found it difficult to steer a neutral course among rival Arab governments. Secular and all-inclusive, the PLO was an umbrella organization of some 10 different Palestinian groups, including the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), under Dr. George Habash, and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP), led by Naif Hawatmeh; the Arab Liberation Front, supported by Iraq; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine– General Command, a PFLP splinter group supported by Syria and sometimes Libya. The Palestine National Council operated until the 1993 Oslo Accords as a government in exile. The PNC comprised over 300 members, including fighters, union members, students, and women. The Palestine Central Council acted as an advisory board of approximately 60 representatives from all the various factions. The Executive Committee ran the PLO on a daily basis and comprised 15 members. In contrast to many other Arab governments, the PLO was highly democratic and engaged in lively and often public debates about strategies and tactics. The Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) was the PLO’s military wing and was often made up of fedayeen (selfsacrificers). By the 1970s the PLA had an estimated 10,000 fighters based mostly in Lebanon and Syria. After the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon the PLA was forced to scatter to a number of Arab countries. After the establishment of the Palestine Authority (PA) under the 1993 Oslo Accords, many soldiers were subsumed under the police force. The Palestine National Fund was the PLO’s economic arm. The fund was financed by donations from Palestinians in exile as well as taxes levied on Palestinians working in some Arab nations such as Libya. Individual Arab governments, such as oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, also provided aid. Those regimes cut off aid after the PLO supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the First Gulf War. After the 1967 war, some groups within the PLO endorsed terrorist attacks on civilians. The PFLP simultaneously skyjacked four planes, landing them at a remote airstrip in Jordan in 1970; this incident precipitated “Black September,” when the Jordanian army attacked and defeated Palestinian forces and ousted the PLO, which then moved its base of operations to Lebanon. Attacks on Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics 332 Palestine Liberation Organization followed in 1972. The cycle of violence escalated as PLO groups launched raids inside and outside of Israel and Israel assassinated Palestinian leaders in the Middle East and Europe. As a result many innocent civilians on both sides were killed and wounded. Within the Arab world the PLO was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Although it was condemned as a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States, the PLO gradually gained international recognition, and, once it renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist, even Israel and the United States entered into both public and secret negotiations with it. The PLO also established an extensive network of social services, including schools, orphanages, and hospitals. The Palestine Red Crescent was active in providing health and emergency care. SAMED provided an economic infrastructure of small businesses, workshops, and factories manufacturing textiles and even office furniture in Lebanon and Syria. Many of these institutions were destroyed in the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In the 1970s the PLO also sponsored some agricultural cooperatives in Sudan, Somalia, and other African nations. It also sponsored art and cultural events. The Palestine Research Center, based in Beirut, focused on collecting materials and publishing books and articles on Palestinian history in order to preserve its cultural heritage. The center was also destroyed, and materials were taken by the Israelis in the 1982 war. The PLO also maintained information bureaus and had diplomatic representatives in major world capitals. In the midst of the 1987 Intifada, or Palestinian uprising, in the occupied territories, a rival Islamist organization, Hamas, emerged to challenge Fatah’s leadership. Financed by devout Muslims, especially in conservative Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Hamas prospered first among poor Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip. Because it competed with the PLO, Israel initially ignored Hamas but subsequently found that in many ways it proved a more dangerous enemy. When the PLO, in spite of concessions to Israel, failed to achieve a viable Palestinian state, many more young Palestinians who had grown up under Israeli military occupation joined Hamas. When the Palestine Authority was established in the territories evacuated by the Israeli military in 1994, Arafat became the leader of the PA; he won a clear-cut majority as president in open and fair elections in 1996. However, the PA leaders, most of whom were members of Fatah who had spent years outside the Occupied Territories, were also accused of corruption and inefficiency. After Arafat’s death Mahmud Abbas was elected president in 2005. Fatah dominated the Palestinian parliament until it was defeated by the Islamist Hamas party in the 2006 elections and Ismail Haniyeh became prime minister. As the two main political forces—Fatah and Hamas—competed for power and the Israeli occupation of most of the territories continued, the future of the PLO remained uncertain. See also Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations; terrorism. Further reading: Cobban, Helena. The PLO: People, Power and Politics. London: Oxford University Press, 1984; Nasser, Jamal R. The Palestine Liberation Organization: From Armed Struggle to the Declaration of Independence. New York: Praeger, 1991; Quandt, William B., Fuad Jabber, and Ann Lesch. The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Janice J. Terry Park Chung Hee (1917–1979) South Korean president Park Chung Hee became president of South Korea after leading a military junta that instigated a coup in 1963. He held this position until his death in 1979. Born Pak Chong-hui in 1917 in the farming village of Sonsan in southeastern Korea, Park was the youngest of seven children of a poor farmer. His teachers recommended he continue his education at a normal school Park Chung Hee 333 A banner featuring Yasir Arafat, who was the leader of the Palestinian national movement until his death in 2004. in the provincial capital, where he trained to become a grammar school teacher. After teaching for only two years Park enrolled in a Japanese military academy, in spite of being a Korean. During the last years of World War II, Park served as a second lieutenant in the Japanese army. He returned to South Korea after the end of World War II, received further military training, and became a captain in the army of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). Under suspicion of having cooperated with the communist forces in the north, Park resigned from the army, but was quickly called back into service. As soon as U.S. and Soviet troops withdrew from Korea in 1949, the Democratic People’s Republic (North Korea), under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, invaded the south in an attempt to reunite the nation. The resulting Korean conflict lasted until 1953 and involved not only the two Koreas but also troops from the United States, China, the USSR, and a number of other nations. At the close of the conflict a “demilitarized zone” was established roughly along the 38th parallel between the two countries. Park had continued to rise in the South Korean army to the rank of brigadier general. The combined effects of long years of brutal Japanese occupation and two wars left South Korea in severe distress. Its problems were exacerbated by the corrupt administration of President Syngman Rhee. On April 19, 1960, after Korean students rebelled against the government, President Rhee declared martial law, but the army did not support him. Rhee resigned, making way for an ineffective new government. After nine months, a military coup led by Park Chung Hee overthrew the new government and established the Military Revolutionary Committee as the nation’s governing body. The Revolutionary Committee was later renamed the Supreme Council for National Reconstruction (SCNR), which was invested with legislative, executive, and judicial powers. This military regime was tightly controlled by a few leaders with Park as chairman. A few months later the Political Activities Purification Law was passed, making it illegal for civilian leaders who had served in the First and Second Republics to engage in political activity. President Yun Po-Sun resigned in protest in March 1962, enabling Park to become acting president. Park and the Supreme Council undertook a drastic revision of Korea’s constitution, giving the president control of the National Assembly and giving him broad emergency powers. In August 1963 Park resigned from the military and joined the Democratic Republican Party. He easily won the following election and served as president of the Third Republic of Korea beginning in 1963. Although Park was no longer a member of the military, there was no doubt that the military upheld his regime. In the following years Park promoted an extensive industrialization program, instituted educational reform, and extended diplomatic relations, but his regime became increasingly authoritarian and repressive. Park Chung Hee was easily reelected president in 1967, and in 1969 he again instituted constitutional changes. This time he had the constitution amended to allow him to run for a third term, which he won in 1971. Student demonstrations and increasing dissatisfaction among the general public at the beginning of his third term led Park again to change the constitution, creating a stronger centralized power in the new Fourth Republic. Park called this the Yushin Honpop, or Revitalizing Reforms Constitution. When protests against his increased powers erupted they were quickly and violently quelled. Park Chung Hee was shot to death by the head of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency on October 26, 1979, allegedly accidentally as he was arguing with another dinner guest, but questions remain. See also Korean War (1950–1953). Further reading: Kim, Hyung-A. Korea’s Development Under Park Chung-Hee. Routledge/Asian Studies Association of Australia (ASAA) East Asia Series. London: Routledge, 2003; Chang, Yunshik ed. Transformations in Twentieth Century Korea. Routledge Advances in Korean Studies. London: Routledge, 2006. Jean Shepherd Hamm Pathet Lao The term Pathet Lao (land of Lao) is generally used to describe the communist movement of Laos that began in 1945 and continued until 1975, when Laos became communist. It was one of three groups active in the politics of Laos, the other two being the Royal Lao Government (RLG) and the neutralists. Laos became a French protectorate in 1893. During World War II, the Japanese took control of Laos and declared it independent from French colonial rule on March 9, 1945. After Japan’s surrender, an independent Lao Issara (Free Laos) government was proclaimed on September 1, joined by the Pathet Lao, 334 Pathet Lao with its strong nationalist leanings. There was a Lao committee section in the Indochinese Communist Party, and the separate existence of the Lao communist movement was established in 1945. The leader of the Pathet Lao, Prince Souphanuvong, had met the Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh in 1945 and gained control of central Laos with the help of Vietnamese troops. The prince had nurtured the communist movement and was prepared to fight against the French, who had seized the capital city, Vientiane, in 1946. Laos was soon engulfed in the First Indochina War, and the Pathet Lao fought along with the Vietminh and the Khmer Rouge. The granting of limited independence on July 19, 1949, by the French was not accepted by the communists. However, Souvanna Phouma joined the new French-sponsored government in February 1950, where Souphanouvong proclaimed the parallel government of Pathet Lao along with its political organ, Neo Lao Issara (Lao Free Front). The French defeat at Dien Bien Phu on May 7, 1954, ended its colonial rule in Indochina. The Pathet Lao was recognized as a political party with control over Phong Saly and Sam Neua Provinces and began to consolidate its position. In December 1959 the military-dominated government of Phoumi Nosavan arrested the Pathet Lao members of the National Assembly, although Souphanouvong escaped. Laos was plunged into civil war. North Vietnam supported the Pathet Lao by sending arms, ammunitions, and troops. The U.S. government included Laos in its containment strategy defense against North Vietnam and China. Another attempt was made to bring peace to Laos with the Geneva Accords of 1962. But the attempt failed, and Laos was soon embroiled in the Vietnam War. A three-pronged coalition between the Pathet Lao, the royal government, and the neutralists did not last long, and the United States and Hanoi stepped up economic and military assistance to their respective allies. War in Laos became a sideshow in the Vietnam War, marked by heavy civilian death toll. The Pathet Lao military advance captured more territory and by 1972 controlled four-fifths of the land and half the population of Laos. Finally, the signing of the Paris Peace Agreements on Vietnam in 1973 led to accelerated negotiations in Laos. An agreement on Restoring Peace and Achieving National Concord on Laos was signed in the same year. With the United States out of South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese conquered the south in 1975. After the fall of South Vietnam, the Pathet Lao assumed effective control of Laos, and the coalition government in Laos was dissolved. On December 2, 1975, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (LPDR) was formed with Souphanouvong as president. Further reading: Evans, Grant. Lao Peasants Under Socialism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990; Mishra, Patit Paban. A Contemporary History of Laos. New Delhi: National Book Organization, 1999; Stuart-Fox, Martin. Buddhist Kingdom, Marxist State: The Making of Modern Laos. Bangkok: White Lotus Co, 1996; ———. A History of Laos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Patit Paban Mishra Paz Estenssoro, Victor (1907–2001) Bolivian revolutionary Leader of Bolivia’s Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionaria, or MNR) and a leading figure in the Bolivian revolution, Victor Paz Estenssoro was elected to the presidency four times and played a major role in Bolivia’s 20th century history. His overall political trajectory over four decades can be described as a gradual shift from the militant left to the neoliberal right, though whether that transformation entailed an abandonment of principles or growing pragmatism remains a matter of debate. Born in Tarija, Bolivia, on October 2, 1907, to a prominent family, he received his law degree from San Andrés University in La Paz in 1927. Thereafter he occupied a variety of administrative posts before serving as deputy in the National Congress, where he emerged as a leading figure in the opposition movement. In 1941 he cofounded the MNR, a leftist political party advocating far-reaching social and economic reforms. From 1943 to 1946, he served in the cabinet of Colonel Gualberto Villarroel but was forced out by domestic and U.S. opposition. Finishing third in the 1947 presidential elections, he triumphed in 1951, results nullified by the oligarchic regime of Mamerto Urriolagoitia. There followed a period of widespread social unrest, spearheaded by labor unions and peasant leagues, culminating in April 1952 in the overthrow of the government and the MNR’s assumption of power. In his first administration, Paz Estenssoro launched an ambitious program of social and economic reform— slashing the size of the military, extending the franchise, Paz Estenssoro, Victor 33 5 nationalizing the tin mines, breaking up large estates, and instituting universal public education—that met many of the demands of his constituency but galvanized right-wing opposition to MNR rule. That opposition mounted during the administration of his successor and MNR cofounder Hernán Siles Zuazo, as did the political polarization of the country. During Siles Zuazo’s presidency, Paz Estenssoro served as ambassador to Great Britain before returning to Bolivia to seek another term as president. He won handily, and in his second term struggled to keep the fragmenting MNR together and consolidate the gains of the revolution, while fending off a resurgent oligarchy and military and growing challenge from an increasingly militant left, led by his vice president, the labor leader and populist Juan Lechín. Expelling Lechín from the MNR and amending the constitution to permit his reelection, he won a third term in 1964 but was promptly ousted in the military coup of November 3, 1964, which ended the Bolivian revolution. Going into exile in Lima, Peru, he returned to Bolivia to lend his support to the left-leaning military regime of Hugo Banzer Suárez, an action that led to a break with Siles Zuazo and undermined his populist credentials. Soon repudiating the Banzer regime, in 1974 he was expelled from the country and went into exile in the United States. He returned in 1978 to run again for president, came in third, and after the results were nullified by the military, ran again in 1979, coming in second. The military again intervened, and in 1980 Paz Estenssoro again went into exile. In 1985 he was elected as president for the fourth and last time, during which he followed a neoliberal model, slashing state expenditures and reining in hyperinflation. He retired from politics in 1989 and died on June 7, 2001, leaving a complex political legacy. Further reading: Klein, Herbert S. A Concise History of Bolivia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Morales, Waltraud Q. A Brief History of Bolivia. New York: Facts On File, 2003. Michael J. Schroeder Peace Corps, U.S. The Peace Corps started in 1960 as part of U.S. efforts to win the cold war and as an attempt to better the lives of people in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. It is the brainchild of President John F. Kennedy. The Peace Corps has sent more than 180,000 volunteers to over 135 countries in its many years of existence. The Peace Corps is one of the most enduring legacies of the Kennedy administration. Kennedy, then a candidate for the presidency, first mentioned the Peace Corps when he challenged students in a speech at the University of Michigan on October 14, 1960, to dedicate several years of their lives to helping people in the developing countries of the world. The students responded so enthusiastically that, in his inaugural address on January 20, 1961, Kennedy repeated his call. The president, concerned with the image of the “ugly American” who lacked compassion for those suffering from disease and the effects of poverty, argued that the Third World needed technical, managerial, and skilled labor. He wanted the United States to forge a new relationship with developing nations. Kennedy issued an executive order creating the Peace Corps on March 1, 1961. Sargent Shriver became its first director. On September 22, 1961, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Peace Corps to promote world peace and friendship. The agency aims to help the people of interested countries meet their need for trained workers, promote a better understanding of Americans among the peoples served, and promote a better understanding of other people on the part of Americans. By demonstrating the benefits of the U.S. system and capitalism, it also helped contain communism during the cold war. By respecting the cultures of their host countries, volunteers built a goodwill that was politically useful. Goodwill was also achieved through good works. Peace Corps volunteers have been road surveyors, nurses, agricultural technicians, engineers, and teachers as well as information technology experts and business development consultants. At the start of the new millennium, the agency also committed volunteers as part of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. From its beginnings the agency encouraged women to enroll. African Americans were also welcomed. However, not every volunteer was accepted by the agency. Since the start of the Peace Corps only one in five applicants has been accepted. A bachelor’s degree is the minimum education required for acceptance. The Peace Corps prefers more education as well as experience in a given field. At the start of the process volunteers are grouped into six programming categories: environment, agriculture, health, community development, business and skilled trades, and education. Volunteers are then interviewed and rejected if they are not U.S. citizens, are under 18 years of age, are under supervised 336 Peace Corps, U.S. probation, have been involved in intelligence organizations such as the Central Intelligence Agency, possess dependents, or do not have skills needed by the agency. During the evaluation process the Peace Corps recruitment office looks at an applicant’s motivation, commitment, emotional maturity, social sensitivity, and cultural awareness. A background check is performed, and the agency assigns a worker to a particular nation in need of the volunteer’s skills. For those volunteers who are chosen, training programs are exhaustive, often running from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. The agency has written its own textbooks for every nation. The countries that have welcomed Peace Corps volunteers include such African nations as Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, and Tanzania. Latin American and Caribbean countries that have had Peace Corps volunteers include Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, and Nicaragua. In Asia volunteers have served in Fiji, Mongolia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Western Samoa, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In Europe volunteers have worked in Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, and Poland. Former Peace Corps countries include Afghanistan, Argentina, Brazil, India, Iran, Libya, Liberia, Pakistan, Somalia, South Korea, and Venezuela. Further reading: Latham, Michael E. Modernization as Ideology: American Social Science and “Nation Building” in the Kennedy Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000; Peace Corps. At Home in the World: The Peace Corps Story. Washington, DC: GPO, 1996; Spaulding, Marcy L. Dancing Trees and Crocodile Dreams: My Life in a West African Village Journals from Two Years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Mali. Fresno: Poppy Lane, 2004. Caryn E. Neumann Peace Corps, U.S. 337 A Peace Corps volunteer teaches children at the St. Vincents Home for Amerasian Children in Pup’yong, Korea. Peace Corps volunteers have traveled to more than 135 countries in virtually every continent around the world. Perón, Juan Domingo (1895–1974) president of Argentina Subject of what many consider the most powerful political mythology in the modern history of Argentina— that of Peronismo (Peronism)—Juan Domingo Perón remains, despite his eminently public life, a deeply enigmatic figure—at once a populist, a man of the people, a friend of the working class, a dictator, a demagogue, an enemy and ally of the military, and the politician most responsible for a host of failed government policies that nonetheless continue to resonate among large segments of the populace. For three decades—from his burst onto the political stage in 1944–45 until his death in office in 1974—Perón dominated the Argentine political landscape, while his ambiguous and divisive legacy endured long after his death. Understanding modern Argentine history requires understanding the complex political legacy he bequeathed. Born on October 8, 1895, in a small town near Lobos in the province of Buenos Aires to a farming family, by some accounts out of wedlock, Perón entered the military at age 16 and rose gradually in rank. In 1929 he married Aurelia Tizón, who died nine years later of uterine cancer. In 1938, the year of his wife’s death, he traveled widely in Europe, where he came to admire the regime of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. In 1943 he participated in a coup against the conservative regime of Ramón Castillo, and soon after became head of the Department of Labor—one of the weakest government ministries—which he used as a platform to build his own power base, forging alliances with segments of Buenos Aires’s powerful labor unions. Named vice president and secretary of war, on October 9, 1945, he was ousted and jailed by enemies in the military. There followed one of the defining events of modern Argentine history, when mass demonstrations by los descamisados (the shirtless ones) forced his release on October 17. Four days later he married the actress Eva (Evita) Duarte. Until her death, also from uterine cancer, in July 1952 at age 33, Evita was wildly popular among working people and coequal in creating and popularizing the Perón mythology. Building on his strong political momentum, Perón was elected president in February 1946. During his first term (1946–52), at the height of his political power, he implemented a host of populist policies intended to solidify his support among the country’s powerful labor unions, proclaiming his populist vision a “third position” between capitalism and communism. His policies sparked rising government debt and growing economic crisis while polarizing Argentine society into Peronist and anti-Peronist factions. Reelected in 1951, he was ousted in September 1955 in a military coup. For the next 18 years he lived in exile, mainly in Spain, in 1961 marrying nightclub singer María Estela Martínez, or Isabel Perón. Following years of military dictatorship marked by growing social discord and political polarization, he returned to Argentina in 1973 and won his third term as president. He died in office on July 1, 1974, his wife and vice president, Isabel, succeeding him until her ouster by a military coup in March 1976. Further reading: Crassweller, Robert D. Perón and the Enigmas of Argentina. New York: Norton 1987; Turner, Frederick C. and José Enrique Miguens, eds. Juan Perón and the Reshaping of Argentina. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983. Michael J. Schroeder Philippine revolution (1986) A popular, spontaneous, nonviolent, and distinctly religious movement restored democracy to the Philippines, on February 22–25, 1986. After nearly 400 years of colonization by Spain and the United States of America in the first half of the 20th century, the Philippines enjoyed a democratic form of government until Ferdinand Marcos became president in 1965. However, in 1972 Marcos declared martial law, citing communist insurgency but in reality because he faced the prospect of defeat in the presidential elections. Martial law (lifted in 1981) was disastrous for the country. Government-sanctioned atrocities occurred frequently, the media was rigidly controlled, and anyone suspected of being a dissident was imprisoned. One such political prisoner was Benigno Aquino Jr. (nicknamed “Ninoy”), a brilliant politician who was elected to the National Senate at the age of 35 and became Marcos’s most serious rival to the presidency. He was imprisoned for eight years. In 1980 Aquino was allowed to travel to the United States for surgery, and, for the next three years, he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with his family. But he was assassinated in 1983 upon returning to the Philippines. An independent panel investigating his murder put the blame on a military conspiracy involving “some of the country’s highest ranking officers,” but without giving any names. The event galvanized the nation as 338 Perón, Juan Domingo millions of Filipinos mourned his death and led to the “People Power” movement. However, it took three more years before People Power would become a reality. In the interim, opposition to the Marcos regime became more frequent and vocal. Public rallies and demonstrations were often met by military reprisals. Eventually the military, too, became divided, with some calling for reform. Late in 1985 Marcos called a “snap” presidential election on February 7, 1986. It was a move calculated to restore his popular mandate. Many people welcomed this, although it was a foregone conclusion that there would be massive electoral fraud. Corazon (“Cory”) Aquino, the assassinated leader’s widow, with neither political aspirations nor experience emerged as the popular candidate. Expectedly, Marcos declared himself the winner. But the People Power nonviolent revolution would eventually triumph by the defection of two men in Marcos’s camp: the civilian defense minister and a highranking general of the armed forces. They were supported by the archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Jaime Sin, who called on Filipino civilians for help. At first a trickle, then hundreds of thousandsof ordinary Filipinos from all economic strata responded, converging on the streets with no weapons, calling on the advancing soldiers and marines to join the protest. first woman president Within four days, the number of defecting soldiers made it clear that Marcos no longer controlled the military. The United States asked Marcos to step down from power and to desist from military action. Fearing for their lives, Marcos and his family were flown out of the country and took refuge in Hawaii. Corazon Aquino was inaugurated as president on that day, the first woman president of the Philippines. The popular and nonviolent People Power revolution of 1986 restored democracy, but it did not solve all the problems of the country. Twenty years later, the country still faces many political, economic, and social ills. But what People Power demonstrated was the moral superiority of nonviolent and prayerful resistance to political tyranny and moral evil. See also Marcos, Ferdinand and Imelda. Further reading: Forest, Jim and Nancy. Four Days in February: The Story of the Nonviolent Overthrow of the Marcos Regime. Basingstoke, UK: Marshall Pickering, 1988; Komisar, Lucy. Corazon Aquino: The Story of a Revolution. New york: George Braziller, 1987. Jake Yap Pinochet Ugarte, Augusto (1915–2006) general and dictator of Chile President and dictator of Chile from the bloody overthrow of democratically elected Marxist president Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973, until his resignation from the presidency in March 1990, General Augusto Pinochet (pee-noh-CHET) ranks among the most controversial figures in modern Chilean history. The years of his rule as president and dictator (1973– 90) saw large-scale human rights abuses by the Chilean military, with an estimated 3,200 dissidents killed and Pinochet Ugarte, Augusto 33 9 Philippine president Corazon Aquino addresses workers at a rally at Remy Field concerning jobs for Filipino citizens. disappeared, and thousands more imprisoned, tortured, and exiled. The 17 years of his dictatorship also saw major neoliberal reforms of the country’s economy, as promoted by the "Chicago Boys," that resulted in the privatization of many state industries and entitlement programs—most notably the social security system— and that severely circumscribed the role of the state in the national economy. A polarizing figure, revered by some and decried by others, Pinochet left a complex legacy of state repression and radical economic reform with which Chileans continue to grapple. Born in the Pacific port city of Valparaiso on November 25, 1915, the son of a custom’s inspector, Pinochet graduated from Santiago’s military academy in 1937. In 1971 he was appointed to the key post of commander of the Santiago army garrison. In the midst of rising social and political tensions sparked by Allende’s socialist policies, Pinochet garnered the trust of the president, who in August 1973 named him commander in chief of the army. Three weeks later Pinochet led the coup that resulted in Allende’s overthrow and imposition of military dictatorship. The months following the coup were the most violent of the regime, with tens of thousands of Allende supporters rounded up, interrogated, and imprisoned, and hundreds executed. Among the most enduring images of the Pinochet dictatorship was the scene in the Santiago’s main sports stadium in late 1973, used as a clearinghouse for recently arrested prisoners, with a sunglasses- clad Pinochet overseeing the detention and interrogation process. In 1980 a new constitution made the nation’s military the “guarantors of institutionality” and imposed a range of limitations on citizens’ political activities. In 1988 a plebiscite showed a solid majority opposed to continuing dictatorship, and in 1990 he stepped aside to permit national elections and a return to democratic government. The human rights violations of the Pinochet regime were documented in the final report of the National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation (the Truth Commission, or Rettig Report), presented in February 1991 to then-President Patricio Aylwin. On stepping down as army chief, Pinochet was granted a permanent seat in the country’s Senate, immunizing him from prosecution. Human rights activists pursued a novel legal strategy by charging him for genocide, torture, and kidnapping in a Spanish court. In October 1998 he was arrested in Britain on the charges. There ensued a 16-month legal battle over the Spanish court’s extradition order. In 2000 he returned to Chile and was declared unfit to stand trial due to mental and physical ailments. Living the rest of his life in seclusion with his family, dogged by lawsuits and legal charges, he died on December 10, 2006. Public opinion polls after his death showed that slightly more than half of Chileans believed that he should have been prosecuted for his regime’s human rights violations. Further reading: Report of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation. Translated by Phillip E. Berryman. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993; Stern, Steve J. Battling for Hearts and Minds: Memory Struggles in Pinochet’s Chile, 1973–1988. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006. Michael J. Schroeder Poland (1991–present) Poland was the most rebellious of the Soviet-bloc countries, with mass protests in 1956, 1968, 1970–71, 1976, and 1980–81. The society was heavily influenced by the Catholic Church, and the memory of the Polish pope, John Paul II, remains very strong. After the political changes of 1990, Poland made fast progress toward achieving a market economy and a democratic government and making Polish democracy work effectively by civic engagement in public discourses. Roundtable talks on Poland’s first free elections took place in 1988–89. In April 1989 the communist leadership agreed with the Solidarity leadership on competitive elections, where just 35 percent of the seats were open to genuine competition. During the following presidential elections, in November 1990, Lech Wałe˛sa—a former electrician, shipyard worker, and leader of the opposition since 1980—became the first democratically elected president of Poland. Later on, the parliamentary elections were held with the participation of over 100 political parties. The country saw a rough democratic start, and elections were declared again in 1993. At that time, the successor of the communist party, the Alliance of the Democratic Left (SLD), received the largest share of the votes. In November 1995, in the second presidential elections, Aleksander Kwasniewski defeated Wałe˛sa and became the second president of democratic Poland. The leading political issue of the last years of the 1990s was negotiations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Poland joined the defense organization in 2000. During subsequent years, talks with the European Union (EU) regarding the Polish accession received much attention. Poland joined the EU in May 2004. 34 0 Poland (1991–present) In the presidential elections of 2000 and the parliamentary elections of 2001, the successor of the Communist Party, the SLD, won. However, that government lost popularity rapidly after it failed to fulfill promises to upgrade the road network of the country and to undertake a profound reform of the national health system. In addition, these years saw corruption scandals. Right after Poland’s admission to the EU, the cabinet resigned and a new cabinet was formed, with Marek Belka as prime minister. Secrecy in the governing party and scandals contributed to the outcome of the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2005, when the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) and Citizens Platform (PO) became the largest parties in the Polish parliament, the Sejm. PiS leader Jarosław Kaczynski declined the option of becoming prime minister because his twin brother, Lech Kaczynski, was still in the race for the presidential seat. Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz was nominated for that post; however, Jarosław Kaczynski is still considered one of the most influential persons in contemporary Polish politics. Lech Kaczynski did win the presidential election. The main emphasis of his presidency was on combining modernization with tradition and Christianity. The influence of the Kaczynski might increase European skepticism and the focus on Polish Catholic traditions in the near future. In the second half of the 1980s Poland’s economy struggled with mounting macroeconomic imbalances, which culminated in 1989, when hyperinflation and an extremely high central budget deficit hit the country. After that time, Poland was regarded as one of the most successful transition economies in eastern and central Europe. The country’s GDP per capita rose from 31 percent of the EU average in 1992 to 41 percent by the end of the 1990s. One of the challenges of the economic policy was transforming the excessive and poor investment inheritance from the command economy, which was achieved by injecting new technologies into old plants. In addition, most industry subsidies were removed, and the market was opened up to international cooperation. Between the early 1990s and the mid-2000s, the country received over $50 billion in direct foreign investment. With the collapse of COMECON in 1990, Poland had to reorient its trade, and in few years Germany had become its most important trade partner, followed by other EU countries. Despite all of Poland’s economic successes, there has been an unusually complicated situation in Polish agriculture and rural areas. Poland was the only country in the Soviet bloc whose farmland remained for the most part in private hands. The farmers’ dramatically low income levels affected their farms in terms of production and development. Over half of the farms produce only for their own needs, with minimal commercial sales. Despite its small farms, Poland is the leading producer of potatoes and rye in Europe and a large producer of sugar beets. Unlike the dramatic developments in Polish politics and economics, its society changed at a different pace. The political transformation of 1989–90 was the culmination of radical social change, which profoundly affected Polish society. New social movements and the fundamentals of a civic society were in place by the late 1980s. Disappointment in the society in the early 1990s was in large part due to high expectations of the rapid political and economic changes, which exceeded the possibilities of the weak economy. A significant share of Polish society is Euro-skeptic, opposing globalization and stressing traditional national and Catholic values. Polish cultural life flourished even under communist rule, but the political and economic changes opened up new possibilities for generations of artists. Polish jazz, with its special national flavor, is known worldwide, and the film industry of the country has been one of the most important in Europe. Polish avant-garde theater, along with various high-culture music festivals and art exhibitions, are world famous, and Polish popular culture has been receiving growing attention and sponsorship within the country as well. See also Eastern bloc, collapse of the; Reagan, Ronald. Further reading: Blazyca, George, and Ryszard Rapacki, eds. Poland into the New Millennium. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001; Dryzek, John S., and Leslie Holmes. Post-Communist Democratization: Political Discourses across Thirteen Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Murrel, Peter. “What Is Shock Therapy? What Did It Do in Poland and Russia?” In Comparative Politics, Critical Concepts in Political Science. Howard J. Wiara, ed. Vol. 4., pp. 238–69 London: Routledge, 2005. Roberts, K., and Bohdan Jung. Poland’s First Post-Communist Generation. Aldershot: Avebury, 1995. Viktor Pal Pol Pot (1925–1998) Cambodian communist leader Pol Pot (born Sar Saloth) came from a rather wealthy peasant family in the central Cambodian Kampong Thum Pol Pot 34 1 Province. Through family connections to the Cambodian Royal Court, he was able to gain access to a formal education in both Cambodia and France. He was not the best student and ended up in a technical school. While studying in France, Pol Pot joined several communist organizations and student groups, including the Cercle Marxist, whose members would later provide the leadership of the Cambodian Communist Party. Antidemocratic policies imposed by Cambodian King Sihanouk and rampant corruption in the electoral process after the 1954 Geneva Conference convinced the left that they would never gain control over Cambodia through peaceful means. A 1962 government roundup of Cambodian leftist and communist leaders left Pol Pot in charge of the party. In 1963 Pol Pot went into hiding in the jungle near the Vietnamese border and contacted the North Vietnamese government hoping that it would aid his communist movement and revolutionary aims. Help was not forthcoming due to North Vietnam’s agreements with Sihanouk over their use of the border for the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It was in the border camps that Pol Pot fashioned the Khmer Rouge ideology. The Khmer Rouge held that Cambodia’s rural peasant farmers were the working-class proletarians. This was necessary because Cambodia had almost no industrial working class and because most of the Khmer Rouge leaders came from peasant backgrounds. In 1968 Pol Pot transformed himself into an absolutist leader and minimized collective decision making in the Khmer Rouge leadership. This coincided with a continuing growth of the party due to successive waves of government repression, which also shifted the loyalty of the peasants toward the Khmer Rouge. In 1970 the national assembly voted to remove Sihanouk from power and expel the Vietnamese from the border region. This caused an antigovernment alliance between the Khmer Rouge and Sihanouk. Their main military force consisted of 40,000 Vietnamese sent to secure access to the Ho Chi Minh Trail. During this time, the Khmer Rouge began to “liberate” significant portions of Cambodia and remolded society into their view of agrarian paradise. Communes were organized, private property was banned, and the trappings of wealth were removed from the people. They evacuated all cities and towns they controlled and sent their people to work in rice fields. Former military and government officials, along with the rich and those who had an education, were “purged” (murdered). These policies were applied to the entire country and even Khmer Rouge members after Phnom Penh fell in 1975. Eventually, more than one-quarter of Cambodia’s population of 8 million was killed through starvation, sickness, or murder. Education all but ceased after most intellectuals were murdered. In late 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia after a series of border clashes instigated by the Cambodians. A new Vietnamese-backed regime was installed in January 1979 after Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge fled the capital for the Thai border region. For the next 19 years, Pol Pot led an insurgency against the new government until his death. The legacy of the Khmer Rouge has been continuing misery brought on by their sowing of millions of Chinese-supplied land mines over significant areas of Cambodia. See also Carter, Jimmy; Nixon, Richard; Vietnam War. Further reading: Chandler, David P. Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992; Kiernan, Ben. The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide Under the Khmer Rouge 1975–1979. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002; Short, Philip. Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare. London: John Murray, 2004. Collin Boyd Portugal (1930–present) Portugal has been a land of paradoxes. For much of the 20th century, it was simultaneously a weak, agrarian, poverty-stricken, isolated state on the periphery of Europe and the seat of a vast colonial empire. It had used an alliance with Britain to sustain this paradox for a long time. Portugal relied on Britain to keep Spain at bay and to secure its claim to its colonial holdings. In return, the Royal Navy enjoyed access to a far-flung network of colonial ports to be used as coaling stations. Modern nationalism in Portugal dates from the popular reaction to the British ultimatum of 1890, which foiled a Portuguese scheme to connect Angola and Mozambique by seizing the intervening territory. For half of the 20th century, the country was governed by Western Europe’s most enduring authoritarian regime. Then, in 1974–76, it became the only North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) country to experience a fullfledged social revolution. After approaching the precipice of civil war, Portuguese society backed down and built a working democracy. Portugal overthrew its monarchy in 1910. The country established a new constitution the following year and became Europe’s third republic, after Switzerland 342 Portugal (1930–present) and France. There were several coups over a 16-year period. In reaction to labor unrest in the early 1920s, extra-parliamentary right-wing organizations arose. These groups lent their support to a bloodless military coup in 1926. Two years later, in the wake of financial crisis, the military regime brought an economics professor out of the obscurity of the University of Coimbra and named him minister of finance. António de Oliveira Salazar had a limited set of priorities in that office: to generate a budget surplus and to stockpile gold. He proved to be quite effective at what he set out to do. He quickly overshadowed a succession of military prime ministers and won supporters among officers, clergy, businessmen, bankers, and landowners. The New State The military regime was a little more stable than its predecessor. Salazar, whose star was already rising within the regime, founded a new party in 1930, the National Union (União Nacional), to unify the regime’s supporters. In 1932, as the Great Depression advanced, he was appointed prime minister, a position he would hold for the next 36 years. Salazar promulgated a new constitution in 1933, establishing the New State (Estado Novo). The National Assembly, consisting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Corporatist Chamber, had severely limited powers. Salazar selected nearly all candidates personally. Rights and liberties proclaimed by the constitution were nullified by government regulation. Various sectors of society were organized from above in corporatist fashion. The political police maintained surveillance over potential opponents, many of whom fled into exile. Censors erased any hint of dissent. From 1936 to 1944 Salazar was also minister of war. In that position he found he could shrink the size of the army and control officers’ salaries, transfers, retirements, and even marriages. Officers were encouraged to marry wealthy women so that their salaries could be kept low. A politicized government-run militia, the Portuguese Legion (Legião Portuguesa), partially offset the army’s influence. Thus it was Salazar, not the military, who consolidated the authoritarian regime. His was a conservative, corporatist police state, but it was not a true fascist state. It did not seek to overthrow traditional elites or mobilize society around its goals. Rather, Salazar sought to demobilize—or even freeze—society and to reject modernity. Rather than exalting war, Salazar strove for a kind of neutrality. In any event, his austere policies left the armed forces with a very low level of effectiveness. Spain and World War II Salazar viewed Spain’s leftist Popular Front government as a threat. When General Francisco Franco rebelled against it in 1936, launching the Spanish civil war, Portugal officially followed the lead of Britain and France by promising nonintervention, but surreptitiously funneled aid to Franco. Franco’s agents were allowed to operate on Portuguese territory. Thousands of volunteers went to Spain to fight against the Republican cause. At the end of the war, in March 1939, Salazar and Franco signed a treaty of friendship and nonaggression, known informally as the Iberian Pact. Salazar declared Portugal’s neutrality in World War II on September 1, 1939, the very day Poland was invaded. He also sought to keep the war as far away as possible by bolstering Spain’s neutrality. In the wake of its civil war, Spain was in no condition to take an active role in World War II, but Portugal’s position highlighted the potential costs of even a passive role, as in allowing the Germans to pass through to take the British stronghold of Gibraltar. The strategic situation changed for the Iberian Peninsula as the Germans became tied down in the Soviet Union and the Allies moved into North Africa and Italy. It was now highly unlikely that Spain would intervene on Germany’s side. Salazar allowed himself to be persuaded to join the Allied cause, albeit passively. From the Allied perspective, the Azores were the key objective. Situated in the mid-Atlantic, these Portuguese islands would be useful bases both for antisubmarine warfare and for refueling transatlantic flights in the buildup prior to the great invasion of France. First Britain, and then the United States, acquired access to facilities there, and Portugal ceased selling tungsten to Germany while still claiming to be neutral. Postwar Portugal Portugal’s shift put it on the winning side, improving its bargaining position in postwar Europe and increasing its chances of getting back East Timor and Macao, which had been occupied by the Japanese. Still, the semifascist state was in an ambiguous position after the war. It began to describe itself as an “organic democracy” rather than a “civilian police dictatorship,” an expression that had been used in the 1930s. Portugal was not invited to the San Francisco conference, which established the United Nations, and was denied UN membership until 1955. Portugal was, Portugal (1930–present) 343 however, a founding member of NATO chiefly because the United States still wanted access to bases in the Azores. Portugal’s relations with the United States and NATO replaced its traditional alliance with Britain. Unlike Britain’s earlier guarantee of Portugal’s overseas territories, however, NATO’s area of responsibility was expressly restricted to Europe to avoid its being drawn into colonial wars. A certain “softening” marked the Salazar regime in the postwar era. There was no real institutional change, but some of the more fascistlike institutions were allowed to erode. On the other hand, after a dissident general managed to win 25 percent of the vote in presidential elections in 1958, the direct election of the president was discontinued. A degree of economic liberalization led to the growth of the service sector and a larger middle class in the 1960s. Industry, previously limited to textile production, added electrical, metallurgical, chemical, and petroleum sectors. A stroke immobilized the dictator in 1968, although he lingered for two more years. His successor was Marcello José das Neves Caetano, who, not coincidentally, had also succeeded him in his chair at the University of Coimbra. Caetano brought technocrats into the regime, retired some of Salazar’s old-school hangers-on, and favored economic development over cultivated stagnation, but again the basic system remained. Africa War was spreading in the African colonies of Portuguese Guinea (Guinea-Bissau), Angola, and Mozambique. The policy of the New State had been to instill pride among the Portuguese in their empire, a legacy of Portugal’s glory in the age of discovery. The state also reasserted national control over the colonies, where foreign corporations had conducted much of the economic activity. African farmers were compelled to shift from subsistence crops to cotton for the Portuguese market in the 1930s, and more so as World War II disrupted other trade sources. Portuguese investment in Africa began to take off in the years after the war. Portuguese emigration tripled the white population of Mozambique and quadrupled that of Angola between 1940 and 1960. Initially, even the outbreak of the wars of national liberation spurred economic growth, as the state responded by boosting civil and military investments. All of these changes disrupted the lives of the Africans, and many of them also undermined the few existing bases of support for Portuguese rule. In 1961 a revolt against forced cotton cultivation broke out in Angola. Fighting escalated with retributions and counterretributions; it spread to Guinea in 1963 and Mozambique in 1964. The government quickly repealed forced cultivation and forced labor. It also mobilized troops and dispatched them to Africa. Large numbers of Africans were concentrated in strategic villages (aldeamentos) where their actions could be controlled. In 1961 the United States called on Portugal to decolonize. The insurgents sought and received military aid from the Soviet bloc and China. In order to fight the leftist insurgency most effectively, the military high command assigned junior officers to read the political tracts of African revolutionary leaders, such as Amílcar Cabral of Guinea-Bissau. To their ultimate surprise, a sizable number of junior officers were convinced that the insurgents were right. Some of them also concluded that Portugal itself was an underdeveloped Third World country in need of “national liberation.” Revolution of the Carnations A diverse group of disgruntled junior officers in 1973 formed a clandestine political organization, the Armed Forces Movement (Movimento das Forças Armadas, MFA). On April 25, 1974, the MFA deposed Caetano. The New State collapsed without resistance. Holding red carnations, demonstrators had persuaded other military units not to resist. The MFA then stepped back, but this proved only temporary. The young officers would soon be in the midst of a political free-for-all to determine the direction of the revolution. They too coalesced into a number of factions built around competing political orientations and personalities. Captain Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho became the focal point of one radical faction, once styling himself as the Fidel Castro of Europe. Colonel Vasco Gonçalves began as a moderate, but moved to a position close to the Portuguese Communist Party. A moderate faction, later dubbed the Group of Nine, formed around Lieutenant Colonel Melo Antunes. Finally, further behind the scenes until the last stages of the revolution were the “operationals,” a group of officers largely concerned with professional military matters and associated with Lieutenant Colonel António Ramalho Eanes. The Junta of National Salvation (Junta de Salvação Nacional) was formed from moderate senior officers. General António de Spínola, a former military governor of Guinea-Bissau, was invited to lead the junta as provisional president of the republic. Palma Carlos, a liberal law professor, was named provisional prime minister. Political parties of all stripes were legalized, and political prisoners were released. Political exiles streamed back into the country. Cease-fires were arranged in Africa. In one of the most fateful decisions of the new regime, the leaders promised elections for a constituent 344 Portugal (1930–present) assembly within a year, the first real elections in over half a century, and with universal suffrage and proportional representation. The revolution had released popular tensions that had been building up for decades. Turmoil spread quickly in the newfound freedom, and rival power centers competed to control the situation. Spurred on by the newly legalized Portuguese Communist Party, Maoists and other leftist groups and workers staged strikes and seized factories, shops, and offices. Students took over schools and denounced teachers for “fascist sympathies.” Services broke down, and shortages became common. Right-wing groups, especially in the conservative rural north, began to mobilize and arm themselves. In July the Palma Carlos government collapsed amid the turmoil, and prominent members of the MFA moved into key positions. Carvalho was promoted to brigadier general and put in charge of the army’s new Continental Operational Command (Comando Operacional do Continente, COPCON), which became the principal arbiter of order as the police disintegrated. Colonel Vasco Gonçalves was appointed to the position of prime minister. The MFA radicals regularly overruled Spínola’s decisions and also forced him to accept the independence of the colonies. In September a major demonstration planned by Spínola to bolster his position forced a confrontation with COPCON, which resulted in Spínola’s resignation. General Francisco da Costa Gomes, who was more sympathetic to the left, assumed the presidency. The most radical phase of the revolution began in March 1975. Spínola launched an unsuccessful coup attempt on March 11. In response, the radical wing of the MFA abolished the Junta of National Salvation and formed the Revolutionary Council (Conselho da Revolução), some 20 officers responsible only to the MFA Delegates’ Assembly. The council nationalized the banking system, press, utilities, and insurance companies. With elections for the Constituent Assembly scheduled for April 25, the anniversary of the revolution, the MFA pressed a “constitutional pact” on the six largest parties, which recognized the permanent supervisory role of the MFA in a “guided” democracy. Turnout was high for the elections, in which 12 parties competed, but the outcome shocked the radicals. The moderate Socialist Party came in first with 37.9 percent, followed by the right-of-center Social Democrats (originally called the Popular Democrats) with 26.4 percent. The Communists, the electoral ally of the MFA radicals, garnered only 12.5 percent. talk of civil war The MFA responded during the “hot summer” (verão quente) of 1975 by styling itself as a national-liberation movement. In the south, landless agricultural laborers seized large estates and declared them collective farms. Moderate Socialists and Social Democrats resigned from the government. Small freehold farmers formed armed groups, held counterrevolutionary demonstrations, and bombed the offices of leftist parties. Plans were drawn up for a possible alternative government in the north. COPCON was beginning to disintegrate, and individual army units were under pressure to declare their political orientation. Both society and the MFA itself were becoming increasingly polarized, and there was talk of civil war. As a consequence of the growing tension, Gonçalves and his government were pressed to resign at the end of August, and they did so. A new, more moderate provisional government was installed. Dissatisfied with this outcome and determined not to “lose” the revolution, radical paratroopers attempted to organize a coup in November 1975. Like Spínola’s coup attempt, however, this backfired. Lieutenant Colonel António Ramalho Eanes, of the MFA’s professional military faction, led a purge of the MFA radicals. COPCON was disbanded and Otelo, its commander, placed under house arrest. Eanes was named army chief of staff and made a member of the Revolutionary Council. The “constitutional pact” was renegotiated in February 1976. Elections were held for the new Assembly of the Republic in April, and Eanes was elected president in June with 61.5 percent of the vote in the first round. The Constituent Assembly sought to avoid both the weak, unstable governments of the 1911 constitution and also the authoritarianism of the 1933 constitution. Based on the French model, the new system called for both an elected president with real powers and an executive prime minister chosen by a majority party or coalition in a freely elected parliament. The renegotiated constitutional pact still called for socialism as the goal of government and society and institutionalized the legacy of the revolution. Moreover, it retained the Revolutionary Council, still a self-appointed and purely military institution, and gave it the power to safeguard the legacy of the revolution and judge the constitutionality of legislation passed by the civilian government. The first elected government was led by Mário Soares of the moderately leftist Socialist Party. In 1979 however, a center-right government of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats was elected. The inherent tension between the elected government and the essentially Portugal (1930–present) 34 5 undemocratic council became evident as the cabinet sought to privatize portions of the economy. After a standoff that lasted roughly from 1979 to 1982, a process of normalization set in and the undemocratic vestiges of the revolution were gradually excised. In particular, a constitutional reform in 1982 abolished the Revolutionary Council and sent the army back to the barracks. In the elections of 1986 Soares became Portugal’s first civilian president in 60 years, replacing Eanes. Another constitutional reform, in 1989, eliminated the requirement to keep the nationalized sector of the economy. The moderate Socialist and Social Democratic parties had increasingly come to dominate the political system, reducing the need for multiparty coalitions and increasing the stability of government. Portugal had become a far less hierarchical and far more pluralistic, democratic, and dynamic society than it had been before 1974. In 1986 the European Economic Community (now the European Union) accepted Portugal and Spain simultaneously as members. The opening to trade, the inflow of European investments for infrastructure and other purposes, and the constitutional changes of 1989 spurred growth and helped transform the economy. Economic growth surpassed the European average in the 1990s and until 2002. While, like any country, Portugal was not without its scandals, controversies, and disagreements, by the end of the century it had become integrated as a solidly democratic, stable, and respected member of the European community. See also North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Further reading: Anderson, James M. The History of Portugal. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000; Maxwell, Kenneth. The Making of Portuguese Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Pinto, António Costa, ed. Modern Portugal. Palo Alto, CA: Society for the Promotion of Science and Scholarship, 1998; Saraiva, José Hermano. Portugal: A Companion History. Manchester, UK: Carcanet Press, 1997; Solsten, Eric, ed. Portugal: A Country Study, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 1994. Scott C. Monje Prague Spring Czechoslovakia became fully communist in February 1948 and was a member of both the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON, the Soviet counterpart to the Marshall Plan). As such, it had very close ties to the Soviet Union, politically as well as economically. During the 1960s, following the ascension of Nikita Khrushchev to the position of premier, the Soviet Union’s relations with its satellite nations in eastern Europe softened, leading to greater flexibility in their political and economic policies. One of the greatest tests of how far this new flexibility would stretch was initiated by Alexander Dubˇcek, the political head of Czechoslovakia. Another factor influencing these events was the spread of student movements across the continent of Europe, particularly in West Germany, Italy, and France. In 1967 these student movements spilled over into Czechoslovakia and dovetailed with increasing intellectual dissent among some of the Communist Party membership. Internally there were deep-rooted fissures in the unity of the state. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia was fragmented, stemming from the political trials of the 1950s, which revolved around questioning party comrades’ commitment to Stalinism. As the party discussed economic changes, two unforeseen developments occurred. Some among the party began to call for relaxed censorship, and Slovak nationalists began to demand a greater share of political power. These events led to the resignation of president and first secretary of the Party Antoni´n Novotný. Later in March Ludwig Svoboda assumed the post of president, due to legislation that mandated that these two positions be separated, as Novotný’s criticism of early reforms foundered. Dubcˇek then implemented a series of radical reforms collectively known as the Action Program. These reforms allowed freedom of expression rather than strict censorship; promoted open, public discussion of important national issues; democratized the KSC; provided amnesty for all political prisoners for the first time in 20 years; encouraged greater economic freedom; allowed noncommunists to assume high-ranking government positions; and opened investigations into the political trials of the 1950s. These reforms became known as the Prague Spring, harkening back to the 1956 attempts of Hungarian Imre Nagy to redefine the role of the Communist Party within the state. The reforms were officially approved by the government on April 5, 1968; however, a rift between liberal communists, who supported Dubˇcek, and hard-line communists, who supported Moscow’s policy, became more clearly defined. Czechoslovak intellectuals responded by calling for long-term commitment, through the publication of a manifesto, which became known as the “Two Thousand 346 Prague Spring Words.” The Soviet reaction to this manifesto was swift and critical, which pushed Dubcˇek’s government to officially condemn its ideas in order to preserve its delicate relations with the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia’s Warsaw Pact neighbors saw this blossoming of freedoms, particularly the “Two Thousand Words,” as a potential danger that threatened to spill over the border and raise public protest within their own nations. However, initially through a series of meetings, it seemed as if the Warsaw Pact nations would allow these experiments to continue. In late July and early August of 1968, at the border village of Cierna nad Tisou, the political leadership of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union met to discuss these developments. This meeting was followed by an additional conference, adding delegates from Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, and Poland, which convened at Bratislava on August 3. These meetings ended with promises of renewed friendship and commitment to socialism; yet Warsaw Pact troops began to mass along the border with Czechoslovakia. Suddenly, during the night of August 20–21, 1968, the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact nations sent 500,000 troops across the border, while Soviet aircraft landed special forces directly in the capital city of Prague, seizing control of key transportation junctures and communication networks. The native population responded with defiance, seen in public protests and demonstrations, and more than 80,000 political refugees streamed into the West, seeking asylum. The Soviets suffered minor military losses of 96 killed and 87 wounded; only 11 of those killed died due to direct confrontation with Czechoslovak citizens. By mid-September, Warsaw Pact troops had killed more than 80 Czechoslovakian citizens, seriously wounded another 266, and lightly wounded an additional 436. The Soviet Union was unable to establish an alternative government, and initially kept Alexander Dubcˇek in his post. Dubcˇek gave in to Soviet demands and repealed his progressive policies. In April 1969 the Soviets installed Gustav Husák as Dubcˇek’s replacement, and Husák then carried out “normalization” efforts and presided over a purge of the KSC. Prague Spring marked the end to the flexibility of Khrushchev, but it also stood as a harbinger of Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost and perestroika of the 1980s. Under the leadership of Leonid Brezhnev this autonomy would cease to exist, a trend that lasted until the time of Gorbachev and the early rumblings of the revolutions of 1989. Brezhnev made this policy shift clear; essentially the “Brezhnev Doctrine” meant that although the Soviet Union would not normally interfere in the affairs of its satellite states, if the system of socialism itself was under direct threat the Soviet Union would help any communist regime maintain power against the threat of overthrow. Further reading: Dawisha, Karen. The Kremlin and the Prague Spring. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984; Szulc, Tad. Czechoslovakia Since World War II. New York: Viking Press, 1971; Williams, Kieren. The Prague Spring and Its Aftermath: Czechoslovak Politics, 1968–1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Laura J. Hilton presidential impeachment, U.S. The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to check presidential power by creating a process for Congress to remove the president for reasons of “treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.” No president has ever been removed from office in this fashion, but two presidents in the second half of the 20th century were subject to impeachment inquiries based on congressional definitions of “high crimes and misdemeanors”: Richard Nixon, a Republican, and Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The process for impeaching the president is spelled out in the Constitution, but has seen an added step produced by the committee system in Congress. The House Judiciary Committee originates the indictment against the president, producing one or more articles of impeachment to define the president’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The articles are then subject to a vote by the full House of Representatives and require a majority approval to impeach the president. The Senate then tries the president, with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding. At the end of the trial the Senate votes; a twothirds majority is needed to remove the president. The attempt to impeach Richard Nixon centered on the illegal activities committed by members of his administration and the attempted cover-up in which he participated. During the first term of his presidency, Nixon engaged in questionably legal activities such as the authorization of the FBI to tap the phones of administration officials and reporters to prevent leaks, and the authorization of the creation of an in-house investigative group, the Plumbers, to prevent leaks and embarrass “enemies” such as Daniel Ellsberg and Senator Edward Kennedy. This willingness to circumvent the law led directly to attempts by the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) to undermine potential presidential impeachment, U.S. 347 Democratic candidates and to seek information from the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office complex. When men who were employed by CREEP staffers G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt were apprehended in the Watergate on June 17, 1972, Nixon and his top aides responded by attempting to cover up the president’s involvement in the affair. A bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against President Nixon, centering on the abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and defiance of a congressional subpoena to turn over the tapes of recorded conversations. To avoid certain removal Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974. At least in part, the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton appeared to grow out of a desire for revenge over the Nixon impeachment attempt. The Clinton administration was subject to several investigations by independent counsels and, after 1994, by the Republican-controlled Congress, both about the behavior of administration officials during his presidency and questions about the financial dealings of the president and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Although Congress and independent counsel Kenneth Starr failed to uncover criminal activity by the president or his wife, they did determine that President Clinton had lied about conducting an extramarital affair with a White House intern. The House Judiciary brought two articles of impeachment against the president on December 19, 1998, centering on lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. The full House voted to impeach the president on both articles on a near–party line vote. After trial by the Senate President Clinton was acquitted of both articles of impeachment on February 12, 1999. President Clinton served out his term in office. Since in both cases of impeachment the president’s party did not control Congress, the process of impeachment has been tarred by the charge that partisanship, rather than presidential malfeasance, has been the primary motive for action. This charge had more resonance in the impeachment of President Clinton than in that of President Nixon because of the criminal acts committed by Nixon and his associates. Nevertheless, the process of impeachment remains a potential check on presidential power. Further reading: Emery, Fred. Watergate: The Corruption of American Politics and the Fall of Richard Nixon. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994; Olson, Keith. Watergate: The Scandal that Shook America. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2003; Rae, Nicol, and Colton Campbell. Impeaching Clinton: Partisan Strife on Capitol Hill. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004. Richard M. Filipink, Jr. Putin, Vladimir (1952– ) Russian president Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born in Leningrad on October 7, 1952, and was very much a product of the Soviet system. His family background was ordinary and reflected the hardships of postwar Soviet life. Putin applied himself to improving his position in the Soviet order and looked, once he graduated in law from Leningrad State University, to a career in the security services (KGB) as the best method of doing so. Following initial duties dealing with Leningrad dissidents, Putin took up from 1985 to 1989 a KGB posting in East Germany. After the collapse of the East German regime, Putin moved to the international affairs section of his old university and within a short time joined the Leningrad politician Anatoly Sobchak as an aide; following Sobchak’s election in 1991 as mayor, Putin became deputy mayor. His abilities were noticed in Moscow, and he joined the Kremlin staff in 1996 as an assistant to Pavel Borodin overseeing Russian economic assets. This post soon brought him to the attention of President Boris Yeltsin, who, in 1998, appointed Putin head of the Federal Security Service (the replacement for the KGB), from which post Putin quickly rose to be head of the Security Council in 1999. These times were unstable ones for Yeltsin and the Russian Federation. Within a period of 18 months several prime ministers came and went. When Yeltsin fired Sergei Stepashin in August 1999, he appointed Putin prime minister. He was now in position for succession to the presidency, which unexpectedly came his way when Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999, and Putin became acting president. A presidential election followed in March 2000, and Putin won convincingly. The backing of the security services and many economic reformers gave him a political base to overcome any threats from the nationalist Fatherland Front. In his first years in office, Putin faced a number of crises stemming from the unrest and malaise of the Yeltsin years. Chechnya, controlled by Islamic militants, was clearly the most significant. He attempted to resolve the war, but terrorist bombings in Moscow brought a swift and punishing military retaliation. 348 Putin, Vladimir In addition, he wanted to reverse some of the decentralizing traits of the Yeltsin years, and this meant imposing more Moscow control over the outlying regions through a system of appointed governors. He moved against the oligarchs who had profited during the Yeltsin years. The crisis following the sinking of the submarine Kursk in August 2000 hurt Putin’s reputation when the government appeared incapable of reacting to the disaster. In terms of policy, Putin wanted to restore something of the order and pride that had existed during the Soviet era. This meant that some old symbols of state were preserved along with the belief in centralizing control over both the economy and the media. Following Putin’s Unity Party landslide victory in the 2003 parliamentary election, it was suggested that control of the state media produced the favorable results. On March 14, 2004, Putin won decisively his second term in office. He continued his campaign to strengthen state powers. There were also improvements in the justice system and reform of the difficult tax laws that inhibited investment and development. Some see recent actions as a reflection of the antidemocratic instincts that lurk behind the scenes in Putin’s administration. Putin’s 2004 support of Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukrainian election was viewed by critics as an exercise in undue influence on the affairs of a neighboring independent state. In foreign affairs, Putin built positive relationships with much of the West, including the president of the United States, although he opposed the Second Gulf War. However, after the events of September 11, 2001, he was generally supportive of U.S. action in the War on Terror, including the use of bases in former Soviet Central Asian territories. His country’s own campaign against Islamic terror made him a willing ally. His provision of nuclear technology and advanced weapons to Iran raised doubts as to his sincerity. He also reluctantly accepted the U.S. abrogation of the ABM treaty as part of America’s missile defense program. Putin cooperated with the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which now includes former Baltic Soviet Republics bordering Russia. Relations with Europe were strengthened by an agreement in 2005 with Germany to construct a major oil pipeline that should bring economic benefits to both Russia and Germany. Putin also attempted to build favorable relationships—economic and political—with his Asian neighbors, China and Japan. It is too early to determine Putin’s legacy but he maintained his popularity with campaigns against corruption and the oligarchs. Economic improvements and stability were welcomed by a public often left in turmoil following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although not an open democracy on Western terms, and with features that suggest the possibility of returning to old ways, Russia remains a world force and one that has the unrealized potential for full democratic development. Further reading: Cameron, Ross. Russian Politics under Putin. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004; Putin, Vladimir. First Person. London: Hutchinson, 2000; Sakwa, Richard. Putin: Russia’s Choice. Oxford: Taylor and Francis, 2004; Shevtsova, Lilia. Putin’s Russia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 2003. Theodore W. Eversole

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki