Here is an interesting article from Stratfor.com.
Iraq: Positive Signs
By George Friedman
The latest reports concerning the war in Iraq suggest the situation is looking up for the United States. First, U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties continue to fall. Second, there are confirmed reports that Sunni insurgents controlled by local leaders have turned on al Qaeda militants, particularly those from outside the country. Third, the head of U.S. Central Command, in an interview with the Financial Times, implied that an attack against Iran is a distant possibility.
It is tempting to say the United States has turned the corner on the war. The temptation might not be misplaced, but after many disappointments since 2003, it is prudent to be cautious in declaring turning points -- and it is equally prudent not to confuse a turning point with a victory. That said, given expectations that the United States would be unable to limit violence in Iraq, and that Sunni insurgents would remain implacable -- not to mention the broad expectation of a U.S. attack against Iran -- these three points indicate a reversal -- and must be taken seriously.
The most startling point is the decline in casualties, and particularly the apparent decline in sectarian violence. Explaining this is difficult. It could simply be the result of the more efficient use of U.S. troops in suppressing the insurgency and controlling the Shiite militias. If that were the only explanation, however, it would be troubling. Standard guerrilla warfare doctrine holds that during periods of intense enemy counterinsurgency operations, guerrillas should cease fighting, hide weapons and equipment and blend into the civilian population. Only after the enemy shifts its area of operations or reduces operational tempo should the guerrillas resume combat operations. Under no circumstances should insurgents attempt to fight a surge.
Therefore, if we were considering U.S. military operations alone, few conclusions could be drawn until after the operations shifted or slowed. In addition, in a country of 25 million, the expectation that some 167,000 troops -- many of them not directly involved in combat -- could break the back of an entrenched insurgency is optimistic. The numbers simply don't work, particularly when Shiite militias are added to the equation. Therefore, if viewed simply in terms of military operations, the decline in casualties would not validate a shift in the war until much later, and our expectation is that the insurgency would resume prior levels of activity over time.
What makes the situation more hopeful for the United States is the clear decline in civilian casualties. Most of those were caused not by U.S. combat operations but by sectarian conflict, particularly between Sunnis and Shia. Part of the decline can be explained by U.S. operations, but when we look at the scope and intensity of sectarian fighting, it is difficult to give U.S. operations full credit. A more likely explanation is political, a decision on the part of the various sectarian organizations to stop operations not only against the Americans but also against each other.
There were two wars going on in Iraq. One was against the United States. The more important war, from the Iraqi point of view, was the Sunni-Shiite struggle to determine who would control Iraq's future. Part of this struggle, particularly on the Shiite side, was intrasectarian violence. All of it was political and, in a real sense, it was life and death. It involved the control of neighborhoods, of ministries, of the police force and so on. It was a struggle over the shape of everyday life. If either side simply abandoned the struggle, it would leave a vacuum for the other. U.S. operations or not, that civil war could not be suspended. To a significant extent, however, it has been suspended.
That means that some political decisions were made, at least on the local level and likely at higher levels as well, as several U.S. authorities have implied recently. Civilian casualties from the civil war would not have dropped as much as they have without some sort of political decisions to restrain forces, and those decisions could not be made unilaterally or simply in response to U.S. military pressure. It required a set of at least temporary political arrangements. And that, in many ways, is more promising than simply a decline because of U.S. combat operations. The political arrangements open the door to the possibility that the decline in casualties is likely to be longer lasting.
This brings us to the second point, the attacks by the Sunnis against the jihadists. Immediately after the invasion in 2003, the United States essentially attempted to strip the Sunnis -- the foundation of Saddam Hussein's strength -- of their power. The U.S. de-Baathification laws had the effect of eliminating the Sunni community's participation in the future of Iraq. Viewing the Shia -- the victims of Hussein's rule -- as likely interested not only in dominating Iraq but also in retribution against the Sunnis, the Sunni leadership, particularly at the local level, supported and instigated an insurgency against U.S. forces. The political purpose of the insurgency was to force the United States to shift its pro-Shiite policy and include the Sunnis, from religious to Baathist, in the regime.
Given the insurgency's political purpose, the power of U.S. forces and the well-organized Shiite militias, the Iraqi Sunnis were prepared to form alliances wherever they could find them. A leading source of support for the Iraqi Sunnis came from outside Iraq, among the Sunni jihadist fighters who organized themselves under the banner of al Qaeda and, weapons in hand, infiltrated the country from outside, particular through Syria.
Nevertheless, there was underlying tension between the local Sunnis and the jihadists. The Iraqi Sunnis were part of the local power structure, many having been involved in the essentially secular Baath Party, and others, more religious, having remained outside the regime but ruled by traditional tribal systems. The foreign jihadists were revolutionaries not only in the sense that they were prepared to fight the Americans but also in that they wanted to revolutionize -- radically Islamize -- the local Sunni community. By extension, they wanted to supplant the local leadership with their own by supporting and elevating new local leaders dependent for their survival on al Qaeda power.
For an extended period of time, the United States saw the Sunni insurgency as consisting of a single fabric. The local insurgents and the jihadists were viewed as the same, and the adopted name of the jihadists, al Qaeda, caused the Americans to see them as the primary enemy. Over time, and particularly since the death of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the United States has adopted a more nuanced view of the Sunni insurgency, drawing a distinction between the largely native Iraqi insurgents and the largely foreign jihadists.
Once this occurred and the United States began to make overtures to the native Iraqi insurgents, the underlying tensions between the foreign jihadists and the Iraqi insurgents emerged. The Sunnis, over time, came to see the jihadists as a greater danger to them than the Americans, and by the time U.S. President George W. Bush last visited Iraq, several Sunni leaders were prepared to be seen publicly with him. The growing animosities eventually turned into active warfare between the two factions, with al Qaeda being outnumbered and outgunned and the natives enjoying all of the perks of having the home-court advantage.
From the U.S. point of view, splitting the Sunni insurgency politically and militarily was important not only for the obvious reasons but also for influencing the Shia. From a Shiite point of view -- and now let's introduce Iran, the primary external backer of Iraq's Shiites -- the worst-case scenario would be the re-establishment of a predominantly Sunni government in Baghdad backed by the U.S. military. The political accommodation between the United States and the Iraqi Sunnis represented a direct threat to the Shia.
It is important to recall that Hussein and his Baathist predecessors -- all Sunnis leading a predominantly Sunni government -- were able to dominate the more numerous Shia for decades. The reason was that the Shia were highly fragmented politically, more so than the Sunnis. This historic factionalization made the Shia much weaker than their numbers would have indicated. It was no accident that the Sunnis dominated the Shia.
And the Shia remained fragmented. While the Sunnis were fighting an external force, the Shia were fighting both the Sunnis and one another. Given those circumstances, it was not inconceivable that the United States would try, and perhaps succeed, to re-establish the status quo ante of a united Iraq under a Sunni government -- backed by U.S. power until Iraq could regenerate its own force. Of course, that represented a reversal of the original U.S. goal of establishing a Shiite regime.
For Iran, this was an intolerable outcome because it would again raise the possibility of an Iran-Iraq war -- in which Iran might take another million casualties. The Iranian response was to use its influence among the competing Shiite militias to attack the Sunnis and to inflict casualties on American troops, hoping to force a withdrawal. Paradoxically, while the jihadists are the Iranians' foe, they were useful to Tehran because the more they attacked the Shia -- and the more the Shia retaliated -- the more the Sunnis and al Qaeda aligned -- which kept the United States and the Sunnis apart. Iran, in other words, wanted a united Sunni-jihadist movement because it would wreck the emerging political arrangements. In addition, when the Iranians realized that the Democrats in the U.S. Congress were not going to force a U.S. withdrawal, their calculations about the future changed.
Caught between al Qaeda and the militias, the Sunnis were under intense pressure. The United States responded by conducting operations against the jihadists -- trying to limit engagements with Iraqi Sunni insurgents -- and most important, against Shiite militias. The goal was to hold the Sunnis in the emerging political matrix while damaging the militias that were engaging the Sunnis. The United States was trying increase the cost to the Shia of adhering to the Iranian strategy.
At the same time, the United States sought to intimidate the Iranians by raising, and trying to make very real, the possibility that the United States would attack them as well. As we have argued, the U.S. military options are limited, so an attack would make little military sense. The Iranians, however, could not be certain that the United States was being rational about the whole thing, which was pretty much what the United States wanted. The United States wanted the Shia in Iraq to see the various costs of following the Iranian line -- including creating a Sunni-dominated government -- while convincing the Iranians that they were in grave danger of American military action.
In this context, we find the third point particularly interesting. Adm. William Fallon's interview with the Financial Times -- in which he went out of its way to downplay the American military threat to Iran -- was not given by accident. Fallon does not agree to interviews without clearance. The United States was using the interview to telegraph to Iran that it should not have undue fear of an American attack.
The United States can easily turn up the heat again psychologically, though for the moment it has chosen to lower it. By doing so, we assume Washington is sending two messages to Iran. First, it is acknowledging that creating a predominantly Sunni government is not its first choice. Also, it is rewarding Iran for the decline in violence by the Shiite militias, which undoubtedly required Tehran to shift its orders to its covert operatives in Iraq.
The important question is whether we are seeing a turning point in Iraq. The answer is that it appears so, but not primarily because of the effectiveness of U.S. military operations. Rather, it is the result of U.S. military operations coupled with a much more complex and sophisticated approach to Iraq. To be more precise, a series of political initiatives that the United States had undertaken over the past two years in fits and starts has been united into a single orchestrated effort. The result of these efforts was a series of political decisions on the part of various Iraqi parties not only to reduce attacks against U.S. troops but also to bring the civil war under control.
A few months ago, we laid out four scenarios for Iraq, including the possibility that that United States would maintain troops there indefinitely. At the time, we argued against this idea on the assumption that what had not worked previously would not work in the future. Instead, we argued that resisting Iranian power required that efforts to create security be stopped and troops moved to blocking positions along the Saudi border. We had not calculated that the United States would now supplement combat operations with a highly sophisticated and nuanced political offensive. Therefore, we were wrong in underestimating the effectiveness of the scenario.
That said, a turning point is not the same as victory, and the turning point could turn into a failure. The key weaknesses are the fragmented Shia and the forces and decisions that might emerge there, underwritten by Iran. Everything could be wrecked should Iran choose to take the necessary risks. For the moment, however, the Iranians seem to be exercising caution, and the Shia are responding by reducing violence. If that trend continues, then this really could be a turning point. Of course, any outcome that depends on the Shia and Iranians doing what the United States hopes they will do is fragile. Iran in particular has little interest in giving the United States a graceful solution unless it is well compensated for it. On the other hand, for the moment, Tehran is cooperating. This could simply be another instance of Iran holding off before disappointing the United States, or it could mean it has reason to believe it will be well compensated. Revealing that compensation -- if it is coming -- is the next turn of the wheel.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
No Terrorist Attacks this Summer
I received the following bulletin from Stratfor.com
SUMMER 2007: THE ATTACK
THAT NEVER OCCURRED
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
The summer of 2007 was marked by threats and warnings of an
imminent terrorist attack against the United States. In addition to the
well-publicized warnings from Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff and a National Intelligence Estimate that al Qaeda was
gaining strength, a former Israeli counterterrorism official warned that
al Qaeda was planning a simultaneous attack against five to seven
American cities. Another warning of an impending dirty bomb attack
prompted the New York Police Department to set up vehicle
checkpoints near the financial district in Lower Manhattan. In
addition to these public warnings, U.S. government counterterrorism
sources also told us privately that they were seriously concerned
about the possibility of an attack.
All these warnings were followed by the Sept. 7 release of a video
message from Osama bin Laden, who had not been seen on video
since October 2004 or heard on audio tape since July 2006. Some
were convinced that his reappearance -- and his veiled threat -- was
the sign of a looming attack against the United States, or perhaps a
signal for an attack to commence.
In spite of all these warnings and bin Laden's reappearance -- not
the mention the relative ease with which an attack can be conducted
-- no attack occurred this summer. Although our assessment is that
the al Qaeda core has been damaged to the point that it no longer
poses a strategic threat to the U.S. homeland, tactical attacks
against soft targets remain simple to conduct and certainly are within
the reach of jihadist operatives -- regardless of whether they are
linked to the al Qaeda core.
We believe there are several reasons no attack occurred this
summer -- or since 9/11 for that matter.
No Conscious Decision
Before we discuss these factors, we must note that the lack of an
attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11 has not been the result
of a calculated decision by bin Laden and the core al Qaeda
leadership. Far too many plots have been disrupted for that to be the
case. Many of those foiled and failed attacks, such as the 2006
foiled plot to destroy airliners flying from London to the United
States, the Library Tower Plot, Richard Reid's failed attempt to take
down American Airlines flight 63 in December 2001 and Jose
Padilla's activities -- bear connection to the core al Qaeda
leadership.
So, if the core al Qaeda has desired, and even attempted, to strike
the United States, why has it failed? Perhaps the greatest single
factor is attitude -- among law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, the public at large, the Muslim community and even the
jihadists themselves.
Law Enforcement and Intelligence
Prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the FBI denied the
existence of an international terrorism threat to the U.S. homeland, a
stance reflected in the bureau's "Terrorism in the United States"
publications in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even after the radical
Zionist Rabbi Meir Kahane was killed by a jihadist with connections
to the Brooklyn Jihad Office and "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdul-
Rahman, the FBI and Department of Justice denied the act was
terrorism and left the investigation and the prosecution of the
gunman, ElSayyid Nosair, to New York police and the Manhattan
District Attorney's Office. (Though they were greatly aided on the
federal level by the Diplomatic Security Service, which ran
investigative leads for them in Egypt and elsewhere.)
It was only after Nosair's associates detonated a large truck bomb in
the parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 that the
existence of a threat to the United States was recognized. Yet, even
after that bombing and the disruption of other plots -- the July 1997
plot to bomb the New York subway system and the December 1999
Millennium Bomb Plot -- the apathy toward counterterrorism
programs remained. This was most evident in the low levels of
funding and manpower devoted to counterterrorism programs prior to
9/11. As noted in the 9/11 Commission Report, counterterrorism
programs simply were not a priority.
Even the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing made no real
difference. Some changes were made, such as physical security
enhancements at federal buildings, but they were merely window
dressing. The real problems, underlying structural problems in the
U.S. government's counterterrorism efforts -- resources, priorities
and intelligence-sharing -- were not addressed in a meaningful way.
Prior to 9/11, experts (including the two of us) lecturing to law
enforcement and intelligence groups about the al
Qaeda/transnational terrorist threat to the United States were met
with indifference. Of course, following 9/11 some of those same
groups paid careful attention to what the experts had to say.
Transnational terrorism had become real to them. The 9/11 attacks
sparked a sea change in attitudes within law enforcement and
intelligence circles. Counterterrorism -- aggressively collecting
intelligence pertaining to terrorism and pursuing terrorist leads -- is
now a priority.
Citizen Awareness
Before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing the American public
also was largely unconcerned about international terrorism. Even
after that bombing, the public remained largely apathetic about the
terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. This was partly the result of the
media's coverage of the 1993 bombing, which seemed to focus on
the hapless, bumbling Mohamed Salameh and not the cunning and
dangerous Abdel Basit (who is more widely known by his alias,
Ramzi Yousef). Furthermore, the follow-on plot to that attack, the
1993 New York bomb plot -- for which Abdul-Rahman and some of
his followers were accused of planning strikes against the Lincoln
Tunnel and other New York City landmarks -- was thwarted. This led
many to believe that the government had a handle on terrorism and
that the United States was protected from such attacks. The second
plot was thwarted before it could be executed, and most Americans
never saw the gigantic crater (nearly 100 feet across) that the
February 1993 truck bomb created through several floors of Building
One's reinforced concrete parking garage. Instead, they saw only a
bit of smoke billowing from the damaged building. The 1993 cases
lacked the stunning visual displays of the 9/11 attacks.
The events of 9/11 also created a 180-degree change in how people
think about terrorism and how they perceive and respond to
suspicious activity. "If you see something, say something" has
become a popular mantra, especially in New York and other large
cities. Part of this stems from the changed attitudes of law
enforcement officials, who not only have issued appeals in the press
but also have made community outreach visits to nearly every flight
school, truck driving school, chemical supply company, fertilizer
dealer and storage rental company in the United States. Through
media reports of terrorist plots and attacks, the public also has
become much more aware of the precursor chemicals for improvised
explosive mixtures and applies far more scrutiny to anyone
attempting to procure them in bulk.
U.S. citizens also are far more aware of the importance of
preoperational surveillance and -- fair or not -- it is now very difficult
for a person wearing traditional Muslim dress to take a photograph of
anything without being reported to the authorities by a concerned
citizen.
This change in attitude is particularly significant in the Muslim
community itself. Contrary to the hopes of bin Laden -- and the fears
of the U.S. government -- the theology of jihadism has not taken root
in the United States. Certainly there are individuals who have come
to embrace this ideology, as the arrests of some grassroots activists
demonstrate, but such people are very much the exception. In spite
of some problems, the law enforcement community has forged some
strong links to the Muslim community, and in several cases Muslims
have even reported potential jihadists to law enforcement.
Even in places where jihadism has more successfully infiltrated the
Muslim community, such as Europe, North Africa and Saudi Arabia,
the jihadists still consider it preferable to wage the "real" jihad
against "crusader troops" in places such as Iraq, rather than to
attack soft civilian targets in the West or elsewhere. As unpopular as
it is to say, in many ways Iraq has served as a sort of jihadist
magnet, drawing young men from around the world to "martyr"
themselves. Pragmatically, every young jihadist who travels from
Europe or the Middle East to die in Baghdad or Ar Ramadi is one
less who could attack Boston, London, Brussels or Rome.
Attitude is Everything
In late 1992 and early 1993, amateur planning was all that was
required to conduct a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In
addition to the almost comical mistakes made by Salameh, serious
gaffes also were made by Ahmed Ajaj and Basit as they prepared
for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, because of the
prevailing apathetic attitude among law enforcement officials and the
public in general, those mistakes were not fatal to the operation.
Given the changes in attitude since 9/11, however, no operation
conducted as poorly as the 1993 bombing would succeed today.
Before the bombing, the FBI investigated the cell that carried it out,
made the determination that the men were harmless fanatics and
closed the investigation. That would not happen today, as even
slightly goofy, wannabe terrorists such as the Miami Seven are
vigorously investigated and prosecuted when possible.
When Ajaj and Basit flew into JFK Airport in September 1992,
authorities pretty much ignored the fact that Ajaj was found
transporting a large quantity of jihadist material, including
bombmaking manuals and videos. Instead, he was sentenced to six
months in jail for committing passport fraud -- a mere slap on the
wrist -- and was then to be deported. Had authorities taken the time
to carefully review the materials in Ajaj's briefcase, they would have
found two boarding passes and two passports with exit stamps from
Pakistan. Because of that oversight, no one noticed that Ajaj was
traveling with a companion. Even when his co-conspirators called
Ajaj in jail seeking his help in formulating their improvised explosive
mixtures and recovering the bombmaking manuals, the calls were
not traced. It was not until after the bombing that Ajaj's involvement
was discovered, and he was convicted and sentenced.
These kinds of oversights would not occur now. Furthermore, the
attitude of the public today makes it far more difficult for a
conspirator like Niday Ayyad to order chemicals used to construct a
bomb, or for the conspirators to receive and store such chemicals in
a rented storage space without being reported to the authorities.
Another change in attitude has been on the legal front. Prior to the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, there were no "terrorism"
statutes concerning the use of weapons of mass destruction or acts
of terrorism transcending national borders. Instead, prosecutors in
terrorism cases struggled to apply existing laws. The defendants in
the 1993 New York bomb plot case were not charged with
conspiring to build bombs or commit acts of international terrorism.
Rather, they were convicted on "seditious conspiracy" charges.
Similarly, Salameh was convicted of violating the Special Agricultural
Worker program and with damaging U.S. Secret Service cars stored
in the basement of the World Trade Center building.
The U.S. security environment has indeed improved dramatically
since 1993, largely as a result of the sweeping changes in attitude,
though also to some extent due to the magnet effect of the war in
Iraq. Success can engender complacency, however, and the lack of
attacks could allow attitudes -- and thus counterterrorism resources -
- to swing back toward the other end of the spectrum.
SUMMER 2007: THE ATTACK
THAT NEVER OCCURRED
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
The summer of 2007 was marked by threats and warnings of an
imminent terrorist attack against the United States. In addition to the
well-publicized warnings from Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff and a National Intelligence Estimate that al Qaeda was
gaining strength, a former Israeli counterterrorism official warned that
al Qaeda was planning a simultaneous attack against five to seven
American cities. Another warning of an impending dirty bomb attack
prompted the New York Police Department to set up vehicle
checkpoints near the financial district in Lower Manhattan. In
addition to these public warnings, U.S. government counterterrorism
sources also told us privately that they were seriously concerned
about the possibility of an attack.
All these warnings were followed by the Sept. 7 release of a video
message from Osama bin Laden, who had not been seen on video
since October 2004 or heard on audio tape since July 2006. Some
were convinced that his reappearance -- and his veiled threat -- was
the sign of a looming attack against the United States, or perhaps a
signal for an attack to commence.
In spite of all these warnings and bin Laden's reappearance -- not
the mention the relative ease with which an attack can be conducted
-- no attack occurred this summer. Although our assessment is that
the al Qaeda core has been damaged to the point that it no longer
poses a strategic threat to the U.S. homeland, tactical attacks
against soft targets remain simple to conduct and certainly are within
the reach of jihadist operatives -- regardless of whether they are
linked to the al Qaeda core.
We believe there are several reasons no attack occurred this
summer -- or since 9/11 for that matter.
No Conscious Decision
Before we discuss these factors, we must note that the lack of an
attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11 has not been the result
of a calculated decision by bin Laden and the core al Qaeda
leadership. Far too many plots have been disrupted for that to be the
case. Many of those foiled and failed attacks, such as the 2006
foiled plot to destroy airliners flying from London to the United
States, the Library Tower Plot, Richard Reid's failed attempt to take
down American Airlines flight 63 in December 2001 and Jose
Padilla's activities -- bear connection to the core al Qaeda
leadership.
So, if the core al Qaeda has desired, and even attempted, to strike
the United States, why has it failed? Perhaps the greatest single
factor is attitude -- among law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, the public at large, the Muslim community and even the
jihadists themselves.
Law Enforcement and Intelligence
Prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the FBI denied the
existence of an international terrorism threat to the U.S. homeland, a
stance reflected in the bureau's "Terrorism in the United States"
publications in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even after the radical
Zionist Rabbi Meir Kahane was killed by a jihadist with connections
to the Brooklyn Jihad Office and "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdul-
Rahman, the FBI and Department of Justice denied the act was
terrorism and left the investigation and the prosecution of the
gunman, ElSayyid Nosair, to New York police and the Manhattan
District Attorney's Office. (Though they were greatly aided on the
federal level by the Diplomatic Security Service, which ran
investigative leads for them in Egypt and elsewhere.)
It was only after Nosair's associates detonated a large truck bomb in
the parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 that the
existence of a threat to the United States was recognized. Yet, even
after that bombing and the disruption of other plots -- the July 1997
plot to bomb the New York subway system and the December 1999
Millennium Bomb Plot -- the apathy toward counterterrorism
programs remained. This was most evident in the low levels of
funding and manpower devoted to counterterrorism programs prior to
9/11. As noted in the 9/11 Commission Report, counterterrorism
programs simply were not a priority.
Even the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing made no real
difference. Some changes were made, such as physical security
enhancements at federal buildings, but they were merely window
dressing. The real problems, underlying structural problems in the
U.S. government's counterterrorism efforts -- resources, priorities
and intelligence-sharing -- were not addressed in a meaningful way.
Prior to 9/11, experts (including the two of us) lecturing to law
enforcement and intelligence groups about the al
Qaeda/transnational terrorist threat to the United States were met
with indifference. Of course, following 9/11 some of those same
groups paid careful attention to what the experts had to say.
Transnational terrorism had become real to them. The 9/11 attacks
sparked a sea change in attitudes within law enforcement and
intelligence circles. Counterterrorism -- aggressively collecting
intelligence pertaining to terrorism and pursuing terrorist leads -- is
now a priority.
Citizen Awareness
Before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing the American public
also was largely unconcerned about international terrorism. Even
after that bombing, the public remained largely apathetic about the
terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. This was partly the result of the
media's coverage of the 1993 bombing, which seemed to focus on
the hapless, bumbling Mohamed Salameh and not the cunning and
dangerous Abdel Basit (who is more widely known by his alias,
Ramzi Yousef). Furthermore, the follow-on plot to that attack, the
1993 New York bomb plot -- for which Abdul-Rahman and some of
his followers were accused of planning strikes against the Lincoln
Tunnel and other New York City landmarks -- was thwarted. This led
many to believe that the government had a handle on terrorism and
that the United States was protected from such attacks. The second
plot was thwarted before it could be executed, and most Americans
never saw the gigantic crater (nearly 100 feet across) that the
February 1993 truck bomb created through several floors of Building
One's reinforced concrete parking garage. Instead, they saw only a
bit of smoke billowing from the damaged building. The 1993 cases
lacked the stunning visual displays of the 9/11 attacks.
The events of 9/11 also created a 180-degree change in how people
think about terrorism and how they perceive and respond to
suspicious activity. "If you see something, say something" has
become a popular mantra, especially in New York and other large
cities. Part of this stems from the changed attitudes of law
enforcement officials, who not only have issued appeals in the press
but also have made community outreach visits to nearly every flight
school, truck driving school, chemical supply company, fertilizer
dealer and storage rental company in the United States. Through
media reports of terrorist plots and attacks, the public also has
become much more aware of the precursor chemicals for improvised
explosive mixtures and applies far more scrutiny to anyone
attempting to procure them in bulk.
U.S. citizens also are far more aware of the importance of
preoperational surveillance and -- fair or not -- it is now very difficult
for a person wearing traditional Muslim dress to take a photograph of
anything without being reported to the authorities by a concerned
citizen.
This change in attitude is particularly significant in the Muslim
community itself. Contrary to the hopes of bin Laden -- and the fears
of the U.S. government -- the theology of jihadism has not taken root
in the United States. Certainly there are individuals who have come
to embrace this ideology, as the arrests of some grassroots activists
demonstrate, but such people are very much the exception. In spite
of some problems, the law enforcement community has forged some
strong links to the Muslim community, and in several cases Muslims
have even reported potential jihadists to law enforcement.
Even in places where jihadism has more successfully infiltrated the
Muslim community, such as Europe, North Africa and Saudi Arabia,
the jihadists still consider it preferable to wage the "real" jihad
against "crusader troops" in places such as Iraq, rather than to
attack soft civilian targets in the West or elsewhere. As unpopular as
it is to say, in many ways Iraq has served as a sort of jihadist
magnet, drawing young men from around the world to "martyr"
themselves. Pragmatically, every young jihadist who travels from
Europe or the Middle East to die in Baghdad or Ar Ramadi is one
less who could attack Boston, London, Brussels or Rome.
Attitude is Everything
In late 1992 and early 1993, amateur planning was all that was
required to conduct a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In
addition to the almost comical mistakes made by Salameh, serious
gaffes also were made by Ahmed Ajaj and Basit as they prepared
for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, because of the
prevailing apathetic attitude among law enforcement officials and the
public in general, those mistakes were not fatal to the operation.
Given the changes in attitude since 9/11, however, no operation
conducted as poorly as the 1993 bombing would succeed today.
Before the bombing, the FBI investigated the cell that carried it out,
made the determination that the men were harmless fanatics and
closed the investigation. That would not happen today, as even
slightly goofy, wannabe terrorists such as the Miami Seven are
vigorously investigated and prosecuted when possible.
When Ajaj and Basit flew into JFK Airport in September 1992,
authorities pretty much ignored the fact that Ajaj was found
transporting a large quantity of jihadist material, including
bombmaking manuals and videos. Instead, he was sentenced to six
months in jail for committing passport fraud -- a mere slap on the
wrist -- and was then to be deported. Had authorities taken the time
to carefully review the materials in Ajaj's briefcase, they would have
found two boarding passes and two passports with exit stamps from
Pakistan. Because of that oversight, no one noticed that Ajaj was
traveling with a companion. Even when his co-conspirators called
Ajaj in jail seeking his help in formulating their improvised explosive
mixtures and recovering the bombmaking manuals, the calls were
not traced. It was not until after the bombing that Ajaj's involvement
was discovered, and he was convicted and sentenced.
These kinds of oversights would not occur now. Furthermore, the
attitude of the public today makes it far more difficult for a
conspirator like Niday Ayyad to order chemicals used to construct a
bomb, or for the conspirators to receive and store such chemicals in
a rented storage space without being reported to the authorities.
Another change in attitude has been on the legal front. Prior to the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, there were no "terrorism"
statutes concerning the use of weapons of mass destruction or acts
of terrorism transcending national borders. Instead, prosecutors in
terrorism cases struggled to apply existing laws. The defendants in
the 1993 New York bomb plot case were not charged with
conspiring to build bombs or commit acts of international terrorism.
Rather, they were convicted on "seditious conspiracy" charges.
Similarly, Salameh was convicted of violating the Special Agricultural
Worker program and with damaging U.S. Secret Service cars stored
in the basement of the World Trade Center building.
The U.S. security environment has indeed improved dramatically
since 1993, largely as a result of the sweeping changes in attitude,
though also to some extent due to the magnet effect of the war in
Iraq. Success can engender complacency, however, and the lack of
attacks could allow attitudes -- and thus counterterrorism resources -
- to swing back toward the other end of the spectrum.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Messianic Psalms
There are fifteen psalms that are explicitly messianic and quoted in the New Testament.
One of the major types of messianic psalms refers to the anointed king. Kings, priests, and sometimes prophets were anointed in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word, masiah, means to smear or pour oil on someone or something for the sake of consecrating it for God’s use. From the word masiah comes the word Messiah, or Anointed One. The Septuagint either transliterates the word as messias or translates it as christos, from which we get the title Christ, the Anointed One.
The king was anointed at his coronation and thus became the masiah of God. David was keenly aware of his typical role as God’s Anointed representative on the throne and when the psalms speak of the king reigning over the whole earth, it indicates that the earthly king is a type of the heavenly king, who reigns in the heavens over the whole world.
Anointing implies consecration, giving the one anointed a high status (making him sacred so that to do violence to him would be a sacrilege) as well as empowering him to fulfill that sacred duty. The outward ritual was symbolic of the anointed one receiving the gift of God’s Spirit, whose presence made the anointed sacred and empowered.
David clearly saw that the nation’s fortunes were tied up with him, so that what happened to him would affect the entire nation. He also understood that any violence done to him was in effect violence done towards God and his people. David’s experiences, then, become typological of the Messiah’s experiences.
As king, the people could see something of God’s glory in him. He was their shield, as was God. He was God’s son and co-regent with God. However, the king’s failures and shortcomings left the people looking for the One who was to come and be the perfect king, the Messiah.
Psalm 2:7 is one of the verses in the Old Testament quoted most frequently in the New Testament. God promised David that his son Solomon would be the next king, and that He would be his Father and he would be God’s son (2 Samuel 7:14). This sonship is also referred to in Psalm 110, and this psalm is quoted by Jesus to show that David realized that even though the king enjoyed a special status as God’s son, there was another Son, higher than he, sitting at God’s right hand. Hebrews 1:13 draws a further contrast by showing that not even the angels have ever received the privilege to sit at God’s right hand, but only to stand before him. Paul, in Romans 1:4 states that Christ was demonstrated to be this Son when he was resurrected from the dead by the power of God. Paul builds on this image in Ephesians 4:8-11 where he quotes Psalm 68:18 to show that Christ ascended into heaven leading a host of captives and giving the gifts of the Spirit to his church. Psalm 45:6 clearly calls this figure on the throne God, indicating that the Messiah is a divine figure, as Hebrews 1:8 points out.
Another Messianic title in the psalms is “my servant,” used by David while in distress (69:17; 86:2, 4, 16) but also in the headings of several psalms to designate himself (18, 36). Most of the quotations from the psalms in the New Testament concerning Christ’s suffering and death come from psalms using this title for the Messiah (22, 35, 40, 41, 109, 118).
Other titles allude to the Messiah and are picked up by the New Testament as well. The high status of “man” is typological of Messiah, as is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18ff; Psalm 110; Hebrews 8-10). Jesus is also called the “stone the builders rejected” (118:22) who has become the chief corner stone.
While there are fifteen psalms that explicitly refer to the Messiah, it is clear from the New Testament that Christ is seen in many more psalms implicitly. The fact that the New Testament writers don’t take the time to explain, let alone prove, that the psalms they are quoting refer to Jesus, implies that there was a wide spread acceptance of this idea already in the early church. This is most likely due to the fact of Jesus’ teaching after his resurrection (cf. Luke 24) where he explains how the whole Old Testament refers to him.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 18-24.
One of the major types of messianic psalms refers to the anointed king. Kings, priests, and sometimes prophets were anointed in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word, masiah, means to smear or pour oil on someone or something for the sake of consecrating it for God’s use. From the word masiah comes the word Messiah, or Anointed One. The Septuagint either transliterates the word as messias or translates it as christos, from which we get the title Christ, the Anointed One.
The king was anointed at his coronation and thus became the masiah of God. David was keenly aware of his typical role as God’s Anointed representative on the throne and when the psalms speak of the king reigning over the whole earth, it indicates that the earthly king is a type of the heavenly king, who reigns in the heavens over the whole world.
Anointing implies consecration, giving the one anointed a high status (making him sacred so that to do violence to him would be a sacrilege) as well as empowering him to fulfill that sacred duty. The outward ritual was symbolic of the anointed one receiving the gift of God’s Spirit, whose presence made the anointed sacred and empowered.
David clearly saw that the nation’s fortunes were tied up with him, so that what happened to him would affect the entire nation. He also understood that any violence done to him was in effect violence done towards God and his people. David’s experiences, then, become typological of the Messiah’s experiences.
As king, the people could see something of God’s glory in him. He was their shield, as was God. He was God’s son and co-regent with God. However, the king’s failures and shortcomings left the people looking for the One who was to come and be the perfect king, the Messiah.
Psalm 2:7 is one of the verses in the Old Testament quoted most frequently in the New Testament. God promised David that his son Solomon would be the next king, and that He would be his Father and he would be God’s son (2 Samuel 7:14). This sonship is also referred to in Psalm 110, and this psalm is quoted by Jesus to show that David realized that even though the king enjoyed a special status as God’s son, there was another Son, higher than he, sitting at God’s right hand. Hebrews 1:13 draws a further contrast by showing that not even the angels have ever received the privilege to sit at God’s right hand, but only to stand before him. Paul, in Romans 1:4 states that Christ was demonstrated to be this Son when he was resurrected from the dead by the power of God. Paul builds on this image in Ephesians 4:8-11 where he quotes Psalm 68:18 to show that Christ ascended into heaven leading a host of captives and giving the gifts of the Spirit to his church. Psalm 45:6 clearly calls this figure on the throne God, indicating that the Messiah is a divine figure, as Hebrews 1:8 points out.
Another Messianic title in the psalms is “my servant,” used by David while in distress (69:17; 86:2, 4, 16) but also in the headings of several psalms to designate himself (18, 36). Most of the quotations from the psalms in the New Testament concerning Christ’s suffering and death come from psalms using this title for the Messiah (22, 35, 40, 41, 109, 118).
Other titles allude to the Messiah and are picked up by the New Testament as well. The high status of “man” is typological of Messiah, as is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18ff; Psalm 110; Hebrews 8-10). Jesus is also called the “stone the builders rejected” (118:22) who has become the chief corner stone.
While there are fifteen psalms that explicitly refer to the Messiah, it is clear from the New Testament that Christ is seen in many more psalms implicitly. The fact that the New Testament writers don’t take the time to explain, let alone prove, that the psalms they are quoting refer to Jesus, implies that there was a wide spread acceptance of this idea already in the early church. This is most likely due to the fact of Jesus’ teaching after his resurrection (cf. Luke 24) where he explains how the whole Old Testament refers to him.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 18-24.
Imprecatory Psalms
How can we as Christians understand and use the fiery imprecations that we find in the Psalms?
First of all, we need to understand the imprecatory psalms as a plea for justice to be done and for wrongs to be righted. This is certainly a sentiment that even the New Testament expresses (Luke 18:1-8), where not only is there a concern for clearing one’s name but a call for retribution within the context of the legal system. It must be emphasized that the imprecations in the psalms are not expressions of personal vindictiveness but a sincere, heartfelt cry for justice.
Second, we need to realize that the New Testament has a much fuller revelation than what was available to the psalmists. The cross brings in a whole new dynamic in the way that we relate to those who wrong us as well as an assurance that evil will ultimately be dealt with.
Third, we find that the imprecations range all the way from plaintive to ferocious. The intensity of the imprecation reflects the intensity of the evil that has been suffered. The psalmists were responding to having their friends respond to their love with brutality (109:4) or their enemies brutally take advantage of their weakness (137). The greater the offense the more intense the cry for vengeance.
Fourth, imprecations must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of rhetoric that govern this genre. Just as proverbs, parables, epistles, apocalyptic and gospels are separate genres with unique attributes that need to be understood properly in order to interpret them correctly, so too imprecations are a separate genre with peculiar attributes that need special attention when being interpreted. An imprecation is a form of hyperbole, a poetic device that crosses over the line of cautious literalism. Imprecations are designed to elicit an intense emotional response from the reader, not impart cold, rational facts. It seeks to kindle in the reader the same emotional response to injustice as the one suffering it experienced. Thus, it is indirect yet very intimate. There are times when we can calmly discuss evil and injustice, but there are also times when we need to experience the full force of evil and injustice as if it were happening to us. Imprecations can do that while calm discourse cannot.
Fifth, other biblical figures, such as Jeremiah and Job, wrestled with deep emotional responses to severe pain, suffering and injustice. In response to their intense expressions of pain and despair, God listens to the whole man and the whole message, acknowledging both the content and the emotion, rebuking when the line is crossed while agreeing with what is true in their complaints (see Jeremiah 12:5; 11:20-23; 12:7ff; Job 38:2; 42:7). God, then, is able to handle the complaints of his saints and is compassionate enough to listen to our hearts and not simply our words.
Sixth, the New Testament focuses on grace and forgiveness, where the Gospel is preached to all, especially to sinners. However, in championing God’s love it doesn’t eliminate God’s wrath, but both are held in balance by the cross. While some quotations of the psalms in the New Testament stop short of the imprecations, those who reject Christ and his message are said to have earned a fate worse than Sodom’s. In fact, God’s wrath and the iron rod of the Messiah of Psalm 2 are clearly prominent in Revelation, “the day of his wrath” (110:5) is found in Romans 2:5, and the anger called down on those “who do not know” God (79:6) is confirmed in 2 Thessalonians 1:8. In fact, often the punishment meted out in the New Testament is much more severe than the vindication called for in the quoted psalm (compare Matthew 7:23 with Psalm 6:8). Therefore, it is too simplistic to say that the God of the Old Testament is a wrathful God while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. God is loving, merciful and forgiving in both testaments just as he is just, righteous and an avenger of evil in both testaments. Therefore, while the call for forgiveness is much stronger in the New Testament, God’s wrath is still evident for those who reject that forgiveness and persist in their evil.
Seventh, pleas for vindication can sometimes be viewed as the fact of innocent blood “crying” like Abel’s “from the ground to God.” Injustice and bloodshed are evil and must be vindicated. Any moral system that does not call evil “evil” is self-destructive and harmful. Calls for vindication in this sense are never expressions of personal vindictiveness or vigilante justice, but the cry of justice and righteousness to prevail against the forces of evil. Anyone who would deny this cry is on the wrong side.
Eighth, the Christian today can still profit from the imprecatory psalms in several ways. Because we have a fuller revelation we cannot cry out for vindication in the same way as the psalmists, but we can express our pain and suffering to God while at the same time blessing those who persecute us and praying for those who are treating us unjustly. We can also profit from the imprecations if we allow them to hit us with their full emotional force, deepening our appreciation for the pain and suffering of those who are being treated unjustly, moving our hearts to act with compassion to seek justice in our own world. The imprecatory psalms can also remind us that God’s judgment on sin and evil is real and there will be a day when all the evil in the world will be dealt with and all the wrongs will be righted, so that justice and righteousness will reign like the noon-day sun.
While the imprecatory psalms may make us feel uneasy and not seem relevant to our modern world and the age of grace, it should remind us that we must remain on the side of justice and righteousness and not use the weapons of evil to inflict pain and suffering on those around us. While we need to patiently endure injustice, love our enemies, and trust God to right the wrongs done to us, we also need to be reminded that if we are not careful, we may find ourselves on the wrong side of justice as the perpetrators of injustice and the subjects of someone else’s imprecations.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 25-32.
First of all, we need to understand the imprecatory psalms as a plea for justice to be done and for wrongs to be righted. This is certainly a sentiment that even the New Testament expresses (Luke 18:1-8), where not only is there a concern for clearing one’s name but a call for retribution within the context of the legal system. It must be emphasized that the imprecations in the psalms are not expressions of personal vindictiveness but a sincere, heartfelt cry for justice.
Second, we need to realize that the New Testament has a much fuller revelation than what was available to the psalmists. The cross brings in a whole new dynamic in the way that we relate to those who wrong us as well as an assurance that evil will ultimately be dealt with.
Third, we find that the imprecations range all the way from plaintive to ferocious. The intensity of the imprecation reflects the intensity of the evil that has been suffered. The psalmists were responding to having their friends respond to their love with brutality (109:4) or their enemies brutally take advantage of their weakness (137). The greater the offense the more intense the cry for vengeance.
Fourth, imprecations must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of rhetoric that govern this genre. Just as proverbs, parables, epistles, apocalyptic and gospels are separate genres with unique attributes that need to be understood properly in order to interpret them correctly, so too imprecations are a separate genre with peculiar attributes that need special attention when being interpreted. An imprecation is a form of hyperbole, a poetic device that crosses over the line of cautious literalism. Imprecations are designed to elicit an intense emotional response from the reader, not impart cold, rational facts. It seeks to kindle in the reader the same emotional response to injustice as the one suffering it experienced. Thus, it is indirect yet very intimate. There are times when we can calmly discuss evil and injustice, but there are also times when we need to experience the full force of evil and injustice as if it were happening to us. Imprecations can do that while calm discourse cannot.
Fifth, other biblical figures, such as Jeremiah and Job, wrestled with deep emotional responses to severe pain, suffering and injustice. In response to their intense expressions of pain and despair, God listens to the whole man and the whole message, acknowledging both the content and the emotion, rebuking when the line is crossed while agreeing with what is true in their complaints (see Jeremiah 12:5; 11:20-23; 12:7ff; Job 38:2; 42:7). God, then, is able to handle the complaints of his saints and is compassionate enough to listen to our hearts and not simply our words.
Sixth, the New Testament focuses on grace and forgiveness, where the Gospel is preached to all, especially to sinners. However, in championing God’s love it doesn’t eliminate God’s wrath, but both are held in balance by the cross. While some quotations of the psalms in the New Testament stop short of the imprecations, those who reject Christ and his message are said to have earned a fate worse than Sodom’s. In fact, God’s wrath and the iron rod of the Messiah of Psalm 2 are clearly prominent in Revelation, “the day of his wrath” (110:5) is found in Romans 2:5, and the anger called down on those “who do not know” God (79:6) is confirmed in 2 Thessalonians 1:8. In fact, often the punishment meted out in the New Testament is much more severe than the vindication called for in the quoted psalm (compare Matthew 7:23 with Psalm 6:8). Therefore, it is too simplistic to say that the God of the Old Testament is a wrathful God while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. God is loving, merciful and forgiving in both testaments just as he is just, righteous and an avenger of evil in both testaments. Therefore, while the call for forgiveness is much stronger in the New Testament, God’s wrath is still evident for those who reject that forgiveness and persist in their evil.
Seventh, pleas for vindication can sometimes be viewed as the fact of innocent blood “crying” like Abel’s “from the ground to God.” Injustice and bloodshed are evil and must be vindicated. Any moral system that does not call evil “evil” is self-destructive and harmful. Calls for vindication in this sense are never expressions of personal vindictiveness or vigilante justice, but the cry of justice and righteousness to prevail against the forces of evil. Anyone who would deny this cry is on the wrong side.
Eighth, the Christian today can still profit from the imprecatory psalms in several ways. Because we have a fuller revelation we cannot cry out for vindication in the same way as the psalmists, but we can express our pain and suffering to God while at the same time blessing those who persecute us and praying for those who are treating us unjustly. We can also profit from the imprecations if we allow them to hit us with their full emotional force, deepening our appreciation for the pain and suffering of those who are being treated unjustly, moving our hearts to act with compassion to seek justice in our own world. The imprecatory psalms can also remind us that God’s judgment on sin and evil is real and there will be a day when all the evil in the world will be dealt with and all the wrongs will be righted, so that justice and righteousness will reign like the noon-day sun.
While the imprecatory psalms may make us feel uneasy and not seem relevant to our modern world and the age of grace, it should remind us that we must remain on the side of justice and righteousness and not use the weapons of evil to inflict pain and suffering on those around us. While we need to patiently endure injustice, love our enemies, and trust God to right the wrongs done to us, we also need to be reminded that if we are not careful, we may find ourselves on the wrong side of justice as the perpetrators of injustice and the subjects of someone else’s imprecations.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 25-32.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Second Clement
Second Clement is the oldest extant Christian sermon outside the New Testament. It is not a letter nor was it written by Clement but is a transcription of a sermon by an anonymous presbyter based on Isaiah 54:1. In all the extant manuscripts Second Clement always follows First Clement, indicating that the sermon may have been preached in Corinth, or sent to Corinth for some reason. The text has been dated anywhere from A.D. 100 to 120.
Outline Summary by Chapters:
1. Praise for God’s salvation, calling us out of idolatry in order to serve him through Jesus Christ.
2. He quotes Isaiah 54:1 and interprets in a way that applies to the hearers’ present circumstances: The barren woman without children was the church who now has children through Christ’s work on the cross. The call for the woman who has no labor pains to rejoice is a call to the church to praise God for salvation. The phrase concerning the deserted woman having more children than the one having a husband refers to the fact that the church now has more believers than the Jews.
3. The preacher quotes Jesus’ words about men acknowledging him and the need to do it from the heart and not merely from the lips (Matthew 10:32 and 12:30) , indicating that we will be rewarded if we truly acknowledge Christ and not be like the people predicted by Isaiah 29:13 (quoted by Jesus in Matthew 15:8) who merely honor God with their lips and not their hearts.
4. It is not enough to merely call him “Lord” but we must show it in our actions by loving each other (quoting Matthew 7:21).
5. The preacher admonishes his hearers to not hold onto this world but live for the world to come. He quotes Jesus telling his disciples that they will be like lambs among wolves (Luke 10:13; Matthew 10:16, 28; Luke 12:4-5). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians where Peter asks, “What if the wolves tear the lambs to pieces?” To which Jesus replies that we should not fear those who can destroy the body but not the soul; rather we should fear God who can destroy both in hell.
6. He then quotes Jesus’ saying that we cannot serve two masters (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25), so believers should not be friends with the world.
7. He then uses the analogy of a earthly race or contest and the need to compete by the rules, lest one should be punished. He doesn't quote Paul but it appears he was familiar with several of Paul’s uses of the race metaphor.
8. There is a call to repent because once you die you will no longer have a chance to repent. He quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians and possibly Luke 16:10-12. There is also an allusion to the potter and the clay of Isaiah 45:9.
9. The preacher emphasizes the fact that we are flesh and will be resurrected again in the flesh to face judgment. Jesus himself was a spirit who became flesh (wn men to prwton pneuma, egeneto sarx), so we too must repent now in the flesh so we may enter the kingdom of God.
10. The preacher calls his hearers to forsake sin and ungodliness: “let us abandon that evil mindset, the forerunner of our sins, and flee ungodliness lest evil things overtake us.” If we do good, we will have peace; if we do evil we will never find peace.
11. He quotes several passages from an unknown source to challenge his readers to remain true to the faith and not be double-minded.
12. He urges his hearers to wait patiently for the kingdom of God since we don’t know the day of God’s appearing (epeidh ouk oidamen thn hmeran thß epifaneisaß tou qeou). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians or the Gospel of Thomas but completely misinterprets it.
13. He gives another call to repentance because their sinful lifestyle is causing God’s name to be blasphemed (Isaiah 52:5). Instead, we should live lives of extraordinary goodness so people will marvel and praise God (Luke 6:32, 35).
14. We must take care not to defile the church, which is the flesh while Christ is the spirit. The church has existed from the beginning and was spiritual and was revealed in the flesh of Christ (efanerwqh en th sarki Cristou). Therefore, whoever abuses the church abuses Christ.
15. Those who repent will be rewarded as will the one who calls them to repentance. God is eager to answer our prayer (Isaiah 58:9).
16. Repent while you have a chance for the day of judgment is coming like a blazing furnace (Malachi 4:1) and this world will be destroyed (Isaiah 34:4). This seems to echo 2 Peter 3:10-12. Repentance, fasting, prayer, and charitable giving should be practiced in order to secure God’s blessing.
17. Repent and call others to repent because those caught up in worldly pleasures will be judged in the fires of hell, where “their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh” (Isaiah 66:18, 24).
18. The preacher then confesses his own sinfulness and his present struggle against sin and evil as an encouragement for his hearers to pursue righteousness and escape the coming judgment.
19. The preacher reads the scriptural exhortation and encourages his hearers to take the calls to repentance seriously and continue to seek righteousness even if it results in present suffering.
20. Patience and endurance is essential since none of the righteous ever received his reward quickly. Nor should be do it simply for the reward but out of sincerity and love for God. He then ends with a benediction, invoking the name of God as “To the only God, invisible” as a quote of 1 Timothy 1:17.
This sermon gives us glimpse into the worship of the church, which appears at least in this instance, to center on the reading of scripture (here an Old Testament text), followed by a sermon filled with scriptural quotes and allusions, some from the Old Testament, some from the New Testament, and others from texts not in the canon. This sermon focused primarily upon a call to repentance and a turning from sin.
This sermon also shows that the divinity and humanity of Christ were considered fundamental truths, though the relationship of the Son to the Father is not address, nor is the relationship of the two natures of Christ. This sermon seems to be refuting Docetism, which saw Christ as a spirit who only appeared to have a body (cf. 1 John which also deals extensively with this issue).
One issue for further research would be whether this is the full text of the sermon or an abridged transcription. It has the feel of a spoken message while the ideas don’t seem to be fully developed, nor is there always a smooth transition from one idea to another.
Outline Summary by Chapters:
1. Praise for God’s salvation, calling us out of idolatry in order to serve him through Jesus Christ.
2. He quotes Isaiah 54:1 and interprets in a way that applies to the hearers’ present circumstances: The barren woman without children was the church who now has children through Christ’s work on the cross. The call for the woman who has no labor pains to rejoice is a call to the church to praise God for salvation. The phrase concerning the deserted woman having more children than the one having a husband refers to the fact that the church now has more believers than the Jews.
3. The preacher quotes Jesus’ words about men acknowledging him and the need to do it from the heart and not merely from the lips (Matthew 10:32 and 12:30) , indicating that we will be rewarded if we truly acknowledge Christ and not be like the people predicted by Isaiah 29:13 (quoted by Jesus in Matthew 15:8) who merely honor God with their lips and not their hearts.
4. It is not enough to merely call him “Lord” but we must show it in our actions by loving each other (quoting Matthew 7:21).
5. The preacher admonishes his hearers to not hold onto this world but live for the world to come. He quotes Jesus telling his disciples that they will be like lambs among wolves (Luke 10:13; Matthew 10:16, 28; Luke 12:4-5). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians where Peter asks, “What if the wolves tear the lambs to pieces?” To which Jesus replies that we should not fear those who can destroy the body but not the soul; rather we should fear God who can destroy both in hell.
6. He then quotes Jesus’ saying that we cannot serve two masters (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25), so believers should not be friends with the world.
7. He then uses the analogy of a earthly race or contest and the need to compete by the rules, lest one should be punished. He doesn't quote Paul but it appears he was familiar with several of Paul’s uses of the race metaphor.
8. There is a call to repent because once you die you will no longer have a chance to repent. He quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians and possibly Luke 16:10-12. There is also an allusion to the potter and the clay of Isaiah 45:9.
9. The preacher emphasizes the fact that we are flesh and will be resurrected again in the flesh to face judgment. Jesus himself was a spirit who became flesh (wn men to prwton pneuma, egeneto sarx), so we too must repent now in the flesh so we may enter the kingdom of God.
10. The preacher calls his hearers to forsake sin and ungodliness: “let us abandon that evil mindset, the forerunner of our sins, and flee ungodliness lest evil things overtake us.” If we do good, we will have peace; if we do evil we will never find peace.
11. He quotes several passages from an unknown source to challenge his readers to remain true to the faith and not be double-minded.
12. He urges his hearers to wait patiently for the kingdom of God since we don’t know the day of God’s appearing (epeidh ouk oidamen thn hmeran thß epifaneisaß tou qeou). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians or the Gospel of Thomas but completely misinterprets it.
13. He gives another call to repentance because their sinful lifestyle is causing God’s name to be blasphemed (Isaiah 52:5). Instead, we should live lives of extraordinary goodness so people will marvel and praise God (Luke 6:32, 35).
14. We must take care not to defile the church, which is the flesh while Christ is the spirit. The church has existed from the beginning and was spiritual and was revealed in the flesh of Christ (efanerwqh en th sarki Cristou). Therefore, whoever abuses the church abuses Christ.
15. Those who repent will be rewarded as will the one who calls them to repentance. God is eager to answer our prayer (Isaiah 58:9).
16. Repent while you have a chance for the day of judgment is coming like a blazing furnace (Malachi 4:1) and this world will be destroyed (Isaiah 34:4). This seems to echo 2 Peter 3:10-12. Repentance, fasting, prayer, and charitable giving should be practiced in order to secure God’s blessing.
17. Repent and call others to repent because those caught up in worldly pleasures will be judged in the fires of hell, where “their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh” (Isaiah 66:18, 24).
18. The preacher then confesses his own sinfulness and his present struggle against sin and evil as an encouragement for his hearers to pursue righteousness and escape the coming judgment.
19. The preacher reads the scriptural exhortation and encourages his hearers to take the calls to repentance seriously and continue to seek righteousness even if it results in present suffering.
20. Patience and endurance is essential since none of the righteous ever received his reward quickly. Nor should be do it simply for the reward but out of sincerity and love for God. He then ends with a benediction, invoking the name of God as “To the only God, invisible” as a quote of 1 Timothy 1:17.
This sermon gives us glimpse into the worship of the church, which appears at least in this instance, to center on the reading of scripture (here an Old Testament text), followed by a sermon filled with scriptural quotes and allusions, some from the Old Testament, some from the New Testament, and others from texts not in the canon. This sermon focused primarily upon a call to repentance and a turning from sin.
This sermon also shows that the divinity and humanity of Christ were considered fundamental truths, though the relationship of the Son to the Father is not address, nor is the relationship of the two natures of Christ. This sermon seems to be refuting Docetism, which saw Christ as a spirit who only appeared to have a body (cf. 1 John which also deals extensively with this issue).
One issue for further research would be whether this is the full text of the sermon or an abridged transcription. It has the feel of a spoken message while the ideas don’t seem to be fully developed, nor is there always a smooth transition from one idea to another.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
First Clement
First Clement was written by the church in Rome to the church in Corinth and is most likely the earliest extant Christian document outside the New Testament. It was written in Rome near the end of the first century, about the same time the apostle John was writing the book of Revelation, around A.D. 95 or 96, in the last year of the emperor Domitian or the first year of emperor Nerva. The author of this letter is unknown to us, and though the letter claims to be the work of the whole church, tradition identifies the author as some named Clement, who tradition claims was the third bishop of Rome after Peter. However, historical evidence suggests that Rome still had a plurality of elders who governed the church at this time, so Clement was most likely the leading elder and not the sole leader.
The letter was written because a certain faction, composed mainly of younger men, in Corinth had ousted the duly appointed bishop of the church. When news of this reached Rome, the church wrote this letter to admonish the faction to step down and reinstate the duly appointed bishop. The church in Rome also dispatched mediators to Corinth to restore peace and proper order.
This letter was held in high regard in the early church and was quoted from frequently. Clement of Alexandria even quotes it as authoritative scripture. This letter even made it into some early copies of the New Testament, so the early church had great respect for this letter.
The first sentence in chapter 1 indicates that there was some trouble in Rome that hindered an immediate response: “Because of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us, brothers, we acknowledge that we have been somewhat slow in giving attention to the matters in dispute among you, dear friends, especially the detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God, which a few reckless and arrogant persons have kindled to such a pitch of insanity that your good name, once so renowned and loved by all, has been greatly reviled.”
The letter goes on to challenge the usurpers to submit to the duly established leadership as is fitting and proper. The letter then refers to a few instances of rebellion in the Old Testament, such as Cain’s murder of Abel, Jacob and Esau, Moses and the rejection of his early leadership by those who knew he killed the Egyptian master, Miriam and Aaron opposing Moses, and David being persecuted by Saul. The letter then gives sever current examples, such as Peter and Paul who were martyred for their faith, and several women who were persecuted named Danaids and Dircae.
One interesting note is that Paul is said to have “reached the farthest limits of the West” and “when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and wen tot he holy place.…” This implies that Paul reached his goal of bringing the gospel to Spain after his imprisonment in Rome. It also implies that he was able to present his defense to Caesar, most likely explaining the gospel to all who were present, and that he was found not guilty and set free.
The letter goes on to warn the Corinthians that such rebellion and factiousness has always been punished. Therefore, the letters calls for the rebels to repent and restore the original leaders. Several examples from the Old Testament of faithful people, who were saved because of their hospitality and generosity, are held up as models for them to imitate, such as Abraham, Lot, Rahab. The letter calls for the church in Corinth to humble itself, repent, and be obedient to God and not follow the arrogant rebels. Christ is then held up as an example of humility and submission to God to follow. Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Job, Moses, and David are also held up as examples to follow. Then the fact that even creation obeys God and follows his decrees is given as a reason to submit to God in this matter. The letter goes on for many more chapters giving exhortations and reasons to repent and submit to God’s order for the church.
One important passage (chapter 44) indicates that the apostles had appointed leaders in the churches and that these leaders were to be honored and obeyed: “Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character, that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well spoken of by all—these men we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry.”
This passage indicates that by the end of the first century, only sixty to seventy years after Christ’s death and resurrection, there was a clear understanding that leadership was, first of all, appointed by the apostles, and second, that those men would have the authority to choose successors, and third, the whole church had to agree on those choices. Therefore, an established leadership was already taking shape immediately after the apostolic period.
The young men in the church of Corinth had clearly gone against this tradition. They had no authority to depose the current leadership, nor did they have the authority to appoint themselves. The church should have resisted such attempts, but it failed to follow the pattern given by the apostles, resulting in schisms and confusion.
In Chapter 47, the letter refers to the apostle Paul’s teaching, calling for them to submit to his authority. In chapter 48 the letter calls for them to quickly root out this offense and pray for forgiveness, so God may be merciful and restore them. The following chapters focus on the need for love and calls the church to show love and not be divided. The letter ends with several chapters of appeal to the rebellious to repent and restore the leadership and seek God’s forgiveness.
This letter also shows us the beginning of the church of Rome’s slow climb to supremacy and dominance over the other churches. The church in Rome saw it fitting to exert its influence over another church in a different region. While it would take centuries before the church in Rome became the leading church and its bishop the leading bishop, it seems that the seeds for that domination began early on as is evident in this letter. This letter also clearly sets up the idea of apostolic succession, with the first bishops being established by the apostles, and the succeeding bishops being established by those bishops, on down through a line of unbroken apostolic succession. While it is evident that this is how it happened historically, it doesn’t mean that Christ or the apostles intended for the bishop of Rome to have dominance over all the other churches. It would seem that the plan was to insure local autonomy not hegemony by one church.
The letter was written because a certain faction, composed mainly of younger men, in Corinth had ousted the duly appointed bishop of the church. When news of this reached Rome, the church wrote this letter to admonish the faction to step down and reinstate the duly appointed bishop. The church in Rome also dispatched mediators to Corinth to restore peace and proper order.
This letter was held in high regard in the early church and was quoted from frequently. Clement of Alexandria even quotes it as authoritative scripture. This letter even made it into some early copies of the New Testament, so the early church had great respect for this letter.
The first sentence in chapter 1 indicates that there was some trouble in Rome that hindered an immediate response: “Because of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us, brothers, we acknowledge that we have been somewhat slow in giving attention to the matters in dispute among you, dear friends, especially the detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God, which a few reckless and arrogant persons have kindled to such a pitch of insanity that your good name, once so renowned and loved by all, has been greatly reviled.”
The letter goes on to challenge the usurpers to submit to the duly established leadership as is fitting and proper. The letter then refers to a few instances of rebellion in the Old Testament, such as Cain’s murder of Abel, Jacob and Esau, Moses and the rejection of his early leadership by those who knew he killed the Egyptian master, Miriam and Aaron opposing Moses, and David being persecuted by Saul. The letter then gives sever current examples, such as Peter and Paul who were martyred for their faith, and several women who were persecuted named Danaids and Dircae.
One interesting note is that Paul is said to have “reached the farthest limits of the West” and “when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and wen tot he holy place.…” This implies that Paul reached his goal of bringing the gospel to Spain after his imprisonment in Rome. It also implies that he was able to present his defense to Caesar, most likely explaining the gospel to all who were present, and that he was found not guilty and set free.
The letter goes on to warn the Corinthians that such rebellion and factiousness has always been punished. Therefore, the letters calls for the rebels to repent and restore the original leaders. Several examples from the Old Testament of faithful people, who were saved because of their hospitality and generosity, are held up as models for them to imitate, such as Abraham, Lot, Rahab. The letter calls for the church in Corinth to humble itself, repent, and be obedient to God and not follow the arrogant rebels. Christ is then held up as an example of humility and submission to God to follow. Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Job, Moses, and David are also held up as examples to follow. Then the fact that even creation obeys God and follows his decrees is given as a reason to submit to God in this matter. The letter goes on for many more chapters giving exhortations and reasons to repent and submit to God’s order for the church.
One important passage (chapter 44) indicates that the apostles had appointed leaders in the churches and that these leaders were to be honored and obeyed: “Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character, that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well spoken of by all—these men we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry.”
This passage indicates that by the end of the first century, only sixty to seventy years after Christ’s death and resurrection, there was a clear understanding that leadership was, first of all, appointed by the apostles, and second, that those men would have the authority to choose successors, and third, the whole church had to agree on those choices. Therefore, an established leadership was already taking shape immediately after the apostolic period.
The young men in the church of Corinth had clearly gone against this tradition. They had no authority to depose the current leadership, nor did they have the authority to appoint themselves. The church should have resisted such attempts, but it failed to follow the pattern given by the apostles, resulting in schisms and confusion.
In Chapter 47, the letter refers to the apostle Paul’s teaching, calling for them to submit to his authority. In chapter 48 the letter calls for them to quickly root out this offense and pray for forgiveness, so God may be merciful and restore them. The following chapters focus on the need for love and calls the church to show love and not be divided. The letter ends with several chapters of appeal to the rebellious to repent and restore the leadership and seek God’s forgiveness.
This letter also shows us the beginning of the church of Rome’s slow climb to supremacy and dominance over the other churches. The church in Rome saw it fitting to exert its influence over another church in a different region. While it would take centuries before the church in Rome became the leading church and its bishop the leading bishop, it seems that the seeds for that domination began early on as is evident in this letter. This letter also clearly sets up the idea of apostolic succession, with the first bishops being established by the apostles, and the succeeding bishops being established by those bishops, on down through a line of unbroken apostolic succession. While it is evident that this is how it happened historically, it doesn’t mean that Christ or the apostles intended for the bishop of Rome to have dominance over all the other churches. It would seem that the plan was to insure local autonomy not hegemony by one church.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Heracles Mad
Euripides treats the legend of Heracles differently than other dramatists, focusing on his disgrace and misery. The play quickly turns to the assassination of Creon by Lycus, who usurps the kingship of Thebes, where Heracles’ family lives. Lycus seeks to destroy all of Creon’s heirs, including Heracles’ three sons. Heracles’ father, Amphitryon, and wife, Megara, keep the children in Zeus’ temple as long as possible.
In the temple, Amphytrion curses Zeus for allowing his grandchildren, Heracles’ sons, to be murdered by Lycus. The chorus then recites the twelve mighty deeds Heracles has wrought, including: killing a lion, a race of centaurs, and a hind; taming Diomede’s man-eating horses; executing Cycnus and the dragon that guarded the golden apples; supporting the heavens on his shoulders; stealing the girdle of the Amazon queen; slaying the Hydra and a three-bodied shepherd monster; and entering the underworld alive. Meanwhile, Megara believes that Heracles has died trying to carry out the twelve tasks demanded of him by Eurystheus, his old enemy, so she prays for Heracles’ ghost to come and scare Lycus away. As she is praying, Heracles himself returns, having finished his twelve tasks, the last one being to descend into Hades alive and return again to the world of the living. He explains that he was delayed because he stayed longer in Hades in order to free his friend, Theseus.
Heracles, along with his wife and father, set a trap for Lycus. When Lycus comes to murder Heracles’ sons, he is caught by surprise and killed by Heracles. But as soon as he has freed Thebes of the usurper, Hera sends Iris and Madness to punish Heracles for killing his grandfather in the course of completing his twelve tasks. While purifying himself to make an offering to Zeus, Heracles goes mad, and foaming at the mouth he hallucinates, thinking he is attacking his old enemy Eurystheus and his sons while in actuality he kills his three sons and his wife. He is knocked unconscious by Athena’s messenger before he can kill his father. The people of Thebes tie Heracles up so he can’t do any more harm.
When Heracles awakens, he thinks he is back in Hades when he sees all the carnage. When he realizes that he was the one who killed his wife and sons, he vows to commit suicide. However, Theseus comes to console him and talks him out of killing himself. He invites Heracles to return with him to Athens and he does.
I was reminded how often we, like Heracles’ father, complain to God for allowing evil to befall us without waiting patiently for his salvation. The Greeks also had a profound sense of retribution for evil actions, even when those actions were not intended. Heracles was punished by Hera for killing a relative, just like Orestes was put on trial for killing his mother and Oedipus was cursed for unwittingly killing his father and marrying his mother. Hubris and evil are punished by the gods, and Heracles was no exception.
Heracles also had to suffer the wrath of Hera because his mother conceived him by mating with Zeus. Many Greek heros had to suffer the jealousy and revenge of the gods. Fortunately, in Christ, there is no condemnation since the wrath of God has been propitiated by Christ’s death on the cross. While God will still discipline us for acts of hubris and sin, He does not seek revenge, but pardons us when we repent.
Heracles’ love for his friend Theseus drove him to put himself in danger in order to rescue him from the underworld. Because he risked his own life to save Theseus from Hades, Theseus was there to console him and keep him from committing suicide. So Heracles’ good deed was instrumental in the preservation of his own life. We should do good to all men, especially to those who are our brothers in Christ, not to get a reward, but realizing that by helping others we are also helping ourselves.
The Greeks also believed that the greater a man was the greater his sorrow would be. Greek tragedy abounds with examples of men, like Heracles, who do mighty deeds and exhibit superhuman character and then suffer incredible pain and loss. Those who desire to live godly lives in Christ will also be persecuted and suffer as Christ did.
In the temple, Amphytrion curses Zeus for allowing his grandchildren, Heracles’ sons, to be murdered by Lycus. The chorus then recites the twelve mighty deeds Heracles has wrought, including: killing a lion, a race of centaurs, and a hind; taming Diomede’s man-eating horses; executing Cycnus and the dragon that guarded the golden apples; supporting the heavens on his shoulders; stealing the girdle of the Amazon queen; slaying the Hydra and a three-bodied shepherd monster; and entering the underworld alive. Meanwhile, Megara believes that Heracles has died trying to carry out the twelve tasks demanded of him by Eurystheus, his old enemy, so she prays for Heracles’ ghost to come and scare Lycus away. As she is praying, Heracles himself returns, having finished his twelve tasks, the last one being to descend into Hades alive and return again to the world of the living. He explains that he was delayed because he stayed longer in Hades in order to free his friend, Theseus.
Heracles, along with his wife and father, set a trap for Lycus. When Lycus comes to murder Heracles’ sons, he is caught by surprise and killed by Heracles. But as soon as he has freed Thebes of the usurper, Hera sends Iris and Madness to punish Heracles for killing his grandfather in the course of completing his twelve tasks. While purifying himself to make an offering to Zeus, Heracles goes mad, and foaming at the mouth he hallucinates, thinking he is attacking his old enemy Eurystheus and his sons while in actuality he kills his three sons and his wife. He is knocked unconscious by Athena’s messenger before he can kill his father. The people of Thebes tie Heracles up so he can’t do any more harm.
When Heracles awakens, he thinks he is back in Hades when he sees all the carnage. When he realizes that he was the one who killed his wife and sons, he vows to commit suicide. However, Theseus comes to console him and talks him out of killing himself. He invites Heracles to return with him to Athens and he does.
I was reminded how often we, like Heracles’ father, complain to God for allowing evil to befall us without waiting patiently for his salvation. The Greeks also had a profound sense of retribution for evil actions, even when those actions were not intended. Heracles was punished by Hera for killing a relative, just like Orestes was put on trial for killing his mother and Oedipus was cursed for unwittingly killing his father and marrying his mother. Hubris and evil are punished by the gods, and Heracles was no exception.
Heracles also had to suffer the wrath of Hera because his mother conceived him by mating with Zeus. Many Greek heros had to suffer the jealousy and revenge of the gods. Fortunately, in Christ, there is no condemnation since the wrath of God has been propitiated by Christ’s death on the cross. While God will still discipline us for acts of hubris and sin, He does not seek revenge, but pardons us when we repent.
Heracles’ love for his friend Theseus drove him to put himself in danger in order to rescue him from the underworld. Because he risked his own life to save Theseus from Hades, Theseus was there to console him and keep him from committing suicide. So Heracles’ good deed was instrumental in the preservation of his own life. We should do good to all men, especially to those who are our brothers in Christ, not to get a reward, but realizing that by helping others we are also helping ourselves.
The Greeks also believed that the greater a man was the greater his sorrow would be. Greek tragedy abounds with examples of men, like Heracles, who do mighty deeds and exhibit superhuman character and then suffer incredible pain and loss. Those who desire to live godly lives in Christ will also be persecuted and suffer as Christ did.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Love Believes All Things
"Love Believes All Things." 1 Corinthians 13:7
Soren Kierkegaard, in his book, Works on Love, reveals the bankruptcy of those who are overly critical, skeptical and suspicious of others. A loving person and a mistrusting person may have the exact same knowledge about an individual but they will draw different conclusions from what they know. A loving person will always interpret the individual in the best positive light, giving him the benefit of the doubt. A mistrusting person, however, will interpret the individual in the worst possible light, refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The mistrusting person feels that believing the individual would be foolish and gullible. By believing the individual, the mistrusting person fears he will be deceived and taken advantage of. Therefore, to avoid being deceived, the mistrusting person always takes the position of skepticism and criticism, viewing all actions of the individual with suspicion.
However, there are many ways of being deceived. If you always mistrust others and view them with suspicion, you cheat yourself out of love. You may never be deceived and taken advantage of by others, but you will also never experience intimacy and love. Therefore, you may never be cheated by another person but you will have cheated yourself out of the most important thing in life—love.
If you love someone else and give them the benefit of the doubt, you may be deceived and cheated. But you will only be deceived and cheated in finite things, things that are temporal and less important. However, if you love and trust others, you will have grasped the most important fundamental truth of life.
Kierkegaard also took a hard swing at his critics when he called them “associate professors [whose] task in life is to judge the great men. [They display a] curious mixture of arrogance and wretchedness—arrogance because they feel called upon to pass judgment, wretchedness because they do not feel their lives are even remotely related to those of the great.”
Read C. Stephen Evans’ article, “Kierkegaard Among the Biographers” in Books & Culture, July/August 2007, pages 12-13.
Soren Kierkegaard, in his book, Works on Love, reveals the bankruptcy of those who are overly critical, skeptical and suspicious of others. A loving person and a mistrusting person may have the exact same knowledge about an individual but they will draw different conclusions from what they know. A loving person will always interpret the individual in the best positive light, giving him the benefit of the doubt. A mistrusting person, however, will interpret the individual in the worst possible light, refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The mistrusting person feels that believing the individual would be foolish and gullible. By believing the individual, the mistrusting person fears he will be deceived and taken advantage of. Therefore, to avoid being deceived, the mistrusting person always takes the position of skepticism and criticism, viewing all actions of the individual with suspicion.
However, there are many ways of being deceived. If you always mistrust others and view them with suspicion, you cheat yourself out of love. You may never be deceived and taken advantage of by others, but you will also never experience intimacy and love. Therefore, you may never be cheated by another person but you will have cheated yourself out of the most important thing in life—love.
If you love someone else and give them the benefit of the doubt, you may be deceived and cheated. But you will only be deceived and cheated in finite things, things that are temporal and less important. However, if you love and trust others, you will have grasped the most important fundamental truth of life.
Kierkegaard also took a hard swing at his critics when he called them “associate professors [whose] task in life is to judge the great men. [They display a] curious mixture of arrogance and wretchedness—arrogance because they feel called upon to pass judgment, wretchedness because they do not feel their lives are even remotely related to those of the great.”
Read C. Stephen Evans’ article, “Kierkegaard Among the Biographers” in Books & Culture, July/August 2007, pages 12-13.
The Four Intelligences or Capacities of Our Nature
Our Third Birth-Gift: The Four Intelligences or Capacities of Our Nature
Four parts of our nature: Mind, Body, Heart, Spirit
Four Capacities of our nature: Physical Intelligence (PQ), Mental Intelligence (IQ), Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) (50)
Mental Intelligence: the ability to analyze, reason, think abstractly, use language, visualize, and comprehend. (50)
Physical Intelligence: the ability of the body to balance and harmonize all of its functions without conscious effort. (50-51)
Emotional Intelligence: self-knowledge, self-awareness, social sensitivity, empathy and communication. A sense of timing for social appropriateness, courage to acknowledge weaknesses and needs, and the respect of differences. (51-53)
“For star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities. For success at the highest levels, in leadership positions, emotional competence accounts for virtually the entire advantage…. Given that emotional competencies make up two-thirds or more o the ingredients of a standout performance, the data suggests that finding people who have these abilities, or nurturing them in existing employees, adds tremendous value to an organization’s bottom line. How much? In simple jobs like machine operators or clerks, those in the top one percent with emotional competency were three times more productive (by value). For jobs of medium complexity, like sales clerks, or mechanics, a single top emotional competent person was twelve times more productive (by value).” Daniel Goleman (52)
“A person may be a ten on a ten-point IQ scale but emotionally score only a two, and not know how to relate well with others. They may compensate for this deficiency by over-relying on their intellect and borrowing strength from their formal position. But in so doing, they often exacerbate their own weaknesses and, in their interactions, the weaknesses of others as well. Then they try to intellectually rationalize their behavior.” (52)
Spiritual Intelligence: our drive for meaning, source of guidance, discernment of principles and connection with the infinite. (53-54)
Semantics and the Superior Nature of Spiritual Intelligence (54-57)
See Howard Gardner’s book, Frames of Mind for an excellent discussion of the concept of separate, yet overlapping intelligences.
See also Robert Cooper and Daniel Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence.
Some separate visual, verbal, analytical, artistic, logical, creative, economic and other intelligences.
“He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality, and will never, therefore, make any progress.” Anwar Sadat (56)
Four parts of our nature: Mind, Body, Heart, Spirit
Four Capacities of our nature: Physical Intelligence (PQ), Mental Intelligence (IQ), Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) (50)
Mental Intelligence: the ability to analyze, reason, think abstractly, use language, visualize, and comprehend. (50)
Physical Intelligence: the ability of the body to balance and harmonize all of its functions without conscious effort. (50-51)
Emotional Intelligence: self-knowledge, self-awareness, social sensitivity, empathy and communication. A sense of timing for social appropriateness, courage to acknowledge weaknesses and needs, and the respect of differences. (51-53)
“For star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities. For success at the highest levels, in leadership positions, emotional competence accounts for virtually the entire advantage…. Given that emotional competencies make up two-thirds or more o the ingredients of a standout performance, the data suggests that finding people who have these abilities, or nurturing them in existing employees, adds tremendous value to an organization’s bottom line. How much? In simple jobs like machine operators or clerks, those in the top one percent with emotional competency were three times more productive (by value). For jobs of medium complexity, like sales clerks, or mechanics, a single top emotional competent person was twelve times more productive (by value).” Daniel Goleman (52)
“A person may be a ten on a ten-point IQ scale but emotionally score only a two, and not know how to relate well with others. They may compensate for this deficiency by over-relying on their intellect and borrowing strength from their formal position. But in so doing, they often exacerbate their own weaknesses and, in their interactions, the weaknesses of others as well. Then they try to intellectually rationalize their behavior.” (52)
Spiritual Intelligence: our drive for meaning, source of guidance, discernment of principles and connection with the infinite. (53-54)
Semantics and the Superior Nature of Spiritual Intelligence (54-57)
See Howard Gardner’s book, Frames of Mind for an excellent discussion of the concept of separate, yet overlapping intelligences.
See also Robert Cooper and Daniel Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence.
Some separate visual, verbal, analytical, artistic, logical, creative, economic and other intelligences.
“He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality, and will never, therefore, make any progress.” Anwar Sadat (56)
From: The 8th Habit, by Stephen Covey
Friday, June 29, 2007
History of Ancient Rome
History of Ancient Rome
B.C.
1200 Trojan War; in legend. Aeneas arrives in Italy
1000 Settlement on Palatine
800 Huts on Palatine and in Forum
753 Traditional date of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus
753-509 "Regal Period"
600 Great Sewer (Cloaca Maxima) built; Forum area drained
510-509 Ejection of Tarquinius Superbus; establishment of Roman Republic
509-31 "Republican Period"
509 First treaty with Carthage
500-440 Incursions of Aequi and Volsci
494 First Secession of the Plebs
493 Treaty of Cassius between Rome and the Latins
449 Secession of the Plebs; Laws of the Twelve Tables published
396 Romans capture Etruscan city of Veii
390 Battle of Allia: Rome sacked by Gauls
367 Licinian laws; Plebeians admitted to magistracy
348 Treaty with Carthage renewed
343-4 First Samnite War
340-338 Revolt of Latin League
326-304 Second Samnite War
321 Roman humiliation at the Caudine Forks
306 Third treaty with Carthage
298-290 Third Samnite War
295 Battle of Sentinum
287 Hortensian law (lex Hortensia): plebiscita binding on all citizens
281-275 Invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus
280 Battle of Herac1ea
279 Battle of Asculum
275 Battle of Beneventum
273 "Friendship" established with Ptolemaic Egypt
264-241 First Punic War
262 Romans storm Agrigentum successfully
260 Roman naval victory at Mylae
255 Roman force in Africa destroyed; fleet destroyed in storm
241 Battle of the Aegates Islands; Sicily made Rome's first province
238 Sardinia and Corsica annexed
241-220 Carthaginian conquest of Spain by Barca family
229 Roman protectorate over IlIyria established
226 Ebro 'Treaty"; "friendship" with Saguntum precedes or follows it?
220 Gallia Cisalpina formed into a province
218-202 Second Punic War; invasion of Italy by Hannibal
218 Battle of Trebia
217 Battle of Lake Trasimene
216 Battle of Cannae
215 Philip V of Macedon allies with Hannibal and Carthage
209 Carthaginian forces in Spain defeated
207 Battle of the Metaurus River
203 Hannibal leaves Italy
202 Battle of Zama
215-204 First Macedonian War
200-196 Second Macedonian War; Macedon barred from Aegean Sea
196 Two provinces formed in Spain (Ulterior and Citerior)
197-133 Roman wars in Spain
192-189 War with Antiochus III of Syria
189 Battle of Magnesia
172-168 Third Macedonian War; Macedon divided into four republics
168 Battle of Pydna; Rhodes ruined by decree
149-146 Third Punic War; revolt in Macedon
147 Macedon formed into province of Macedonia
146 Revolt of Achaean League; Corinth destroyed; Carthage destroyed
135-133 Major slave war in Sicily
133 Tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus; Gracchus and 300 followers murdered in riot; Pergamum willed to Rome
129 Pergamum formed into province of Asia
123-121 Successive tribunates of Gaius Gracchus
121 First passage of senatlls cons G. Gracchus and 3000 followers killed in streetfighting
121 Gallia Transalpina (or Narbonensis) formed into province
111-105 lugurthine War in Numidia
107 First consulship of Marius
105 Battle of Arausio, Italy threatened by Cimbri and Teutones
105-102 Successive consulships of Marius (#s 2-5)
102 Battle of Aquae Sextiae, Teutones defeated
101 Battle of Vercellae, Cimbri defeated
100 Sixth consulship of Marius; senatus consultum ultimum passed
91 Murder of tribune M. Livius Drusus
91-88 Social (Italic) War; universal grant of Roman citizenship to allies
88-84 First Mithridatic War
88 Sulla marches on Rome; "Asiatic Vespers"
87-83 Cinna controls Rome
87 Marius and Cinna seize Rome
86 Seventh consulship of Marius; Marius dies (January)
85 Sulla makes Treaty of Dardanus with Mithridates
83 Sulla returns to Italy; civil war
83-81 Second Mithridatic War
82-79 Sulla dictator "to write laws and organize the state"; strengthens position of Senate, muzzles tribunate
82-81 The Sullan proscriptions
78 Death of Sulla; revolt of M. Aemlius Lepidus; Pompey given command
77-72 Pompey fights Sertorius in Spain
74-63 Third Mithridatic War
73-71 Slave revolt of Spartacus
71 Crassus defeats Spartacus; Pompey returns from Spain
70 Consulship of Pompey and Crassus; Sulla's restoration undone
67 Gabinian Law (lex Gabinia) confers imerium infinitum on Pompey
66 Pirates crushed; Manilian Law (lex Manilia) gives Pompey command against Mithridates
63 Death of Mithridates; Pompey reorganizcs the east; Catilinarian conspiracy in Italy
62 Pompey returns to Italy and "retires"
6O Caesar, Pompey and Crassus form First Triumvirate
51 First consulship of Caesar; legislation favors Triumvirs
58-49 Caesar conquers Gaul
56 Conference of Triumvirs at Luca
55 Pompey and Crass us consuls; legislation favors Triumvirs
54 Death of Julia, Caesar's daughter, Pompey's wife
53 Battle of Carrhae, Crassus killed invading Parthia
49 Caesar crosses Rubicon (10 January); Civil War begins; Caesar dictator for eleven days
49-45 Civil War between Caesar and Pompey
48 Caesar consul; Battle of Pharsalus; Caesar defeats Pompey; Pompey killed in Egypt
47-44 Successive dictatorships of Caesar
47 Caesar suppresses revolt in Asia (Veni, vidi, vici)
46-44 Successive consulships of Caesar
46 Battle of Thapsus in Africa; Cato commits suicide at Utica; Caesar's dictatorship extended for 10 years
45 Battle of Munda in Spain
44 Caesar·s dictatorship made lifelong (February); Caesar assassinated (15 March); Octavius adopted by Caesar and named Octavian; siege of Mutina begins
43 Octavian defeats Antony and. seizing Rome. becomes consul; Octavian. Antony and Lepidus form Second Triumvirate (23 November); proscriptions. death of Cicero (7 December)
42 Double Battles at Philippi (September), Triumvirs defeat Liberators
41 "Perusine War" in Italy
40 "The Peace of Brundisium" between Antony and Octavian
37 Triumvirate renewed
36 Defeat of Sextus Pompeius in Sicily; Lepidus squeezed out of Triumvirate
34 "The Donations of Alexandria"
34-31 Propaganda war between Antony and Octavian
33 Triumvirate lapses; Octavian's second consulship
32 Italy and the west take oath of allegiance to Octavian
31 Battle of Actium; Octavian defeats Antony and Cleopatra
31 BC-AD 476 "Imperial Period"
30 Egypt annexed as Roman province
27 BC-AD 14 Reign of Augustus as first Roman empcror
27 "First Constitutional Settlement" (13 January)
23 "Second Constitutional Settlement"
4 Birth of Jesus of Nazareth
2 Augustus "Father of his Country" (Pater Patriae)
A.D.
14 Death of Augustus (19 August)
14-68 Julio-Claudian Dynasty
14-37 Emperor Tiberius
24-31 Ascendancy of Sejanus
30 Crucifixion of Jesus
37-41 Emperor Gaius (Caligula)
41-54 Emperor Claudius
41 Gaius (Caligula) first emperor to be assassinated
54-68 Emperor Nero
64 Great Fire in Rome. Christians persecuted for first time
66-70 Jewish revolt in Palestine
68 Nero deposed by army revolt
68-69 Emperor Galba
69 Civil War; "Year of the Four Emperors": Galba (January) Otho (January-April), Vitellius (April-December); Vespasian (December)
69-96 Flavian Dynasty
69-79 Emperor Vespasian
70 Jerusalem sacked, Temple destroyed
73 Siege of Masada
79-81 Emperor Titus
81-96 Emperor Domitian
96-98 Emperor Nerva. first of the "Good Emperors"
98-180 "Adoptive Dynasty" (sometimes called the "Antonines")
98-117 Emperor Trajan
106 Formation of Dacia as province
114-17 Eastern wars of Trajan, three new provinces formed
117-138 Emperor Hadrian; abandons Trajan's eastern provinces
122 Construction on Hadrian's Wall in Britain begins
138-161 Emperor Antoninus Pius
150-200 Gradual formation of Germanic tribal confederations
268-270 Emperor Claudius II Gothicus
180-192 Emperor Commodus; adoptive succession abandoned
192 Commodus assassinated; Emperor Pertinax (January-March); emperorship auctioned in forum by Praetorian Guard
193-197 Civil war between Severus, Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger
193-235 Severan Dynasty
193-211 Emperor Septimius Severus
211-212 Emperor Geta (murdered by Caracalla)
211-217 Emperor Caracalla
217-218 Emperor Macrinus (non-Severan usurper)
218-222 Emperor Elagabulus
222-235 Emperor Severus Alexander
220 Emergence of Sassanid Persia in east
235-285 The Crisis of the Third Century; many emperors and usurpers including:
235-238 Emperor Maximinus
238-244 Emperors Gordian I, II, III
244-249 Philip the Arab
249-251 Emperor Decius
250-260 Persecutions of Christians by Decius and Valerian
161-169 Emperor Lucius Verus
161-180 Emperor Marcus Aurelius (rules alone 169- 180)
253-260 Emperor Valerian
253-268 Emperor Gallienus (rules alone, 260- )
253-258 Franks ravage Gaul and Spain
258 Declaration of 'The Empire of the Gallic Provinces" (Imperium Galliantm); Spain and Britain defect to new state
265-268 Gothic assault on Asia Minor and Greece
269-270 Palmyra controls Syria, Egypt, parts of Asia Minor
268-270 Emperor Claudius II Gothicus
270-275 Emperor Aurelian
273 Defeat of Palmyra
274 Imperium Galliarum defeated; empire reintegrated
275 Aurelian assassinated by officers
275-276 Emperor Tacitus
276-82 Emperor Probus
282 Probus murdered by his soldiers
282-284 Civil war
284-305 Emperor Dioc1etian; major reforms; establishment of Tetrarchy
299-311 "The Great Persecution" of Christians, particularly fierce under Tetrarch Galerius
305 Dioc1etian and Maximian retire
306 Constantine dec1ared Augustus by troops; Maxentius seizes Rome; Tetrarchy fails
306-337 Emperor Constantine the Great (rules alone, 324-337)
311 Galerius issues Edict of Toleration of Christianity
312 Battle of the Milvian bridge; Constantine's vision; Constantine gains control of western part of the empire
313 Edict of Milan tolerates all forms of worship
314 Council of bishops at Arelate
317-21 Persecution of Donatists in Africa
324 Constantinople founded
330 Constantinople becomes new capital of Roman empire
325 Council of Nicaea
337-361 Emperor Constantius II
361-363 Emperor lui ian the Apostate
364-375 Emperor Valentinian
364-378 Emperor Valens (east)
375-83 Emperor Gratian
378 Battle of Adrianople, Valens killed by Goths
379-395 Emperor Theodosius the Great gains control of whole empire
391 Edicts of intolerance against paganism; Christianity instituted as official religion
395 Empire officially divided in Theodosius' will into east (under Arcadius) and west (under Honorius)
395-423 Emperor Honorius (west)
395-408 Ascendancy of Stilicho
400 Cities and trade begin to decline in west; Germanic tribes settled in large numbers in Gaul and along Danube frontier
395-402 Alaric and the Visigoths harry east
402-410 Alaric turns to Italy
409 Vandals and others overrun Spain
410 Sack of Rome by Alaric (23 August); Britain abandoned
429 Vandals seize Africa
451-453 Attila the Hun invades west
451 Battle of Chalons; Huns defeated
453 Death of Attila
455 Vandals sack Rome
455-72 Ascendancy of Ricimer
475-476 Romulus Augustulus, last western emperor
476 Traditional date for the "Fall of the Roman Empire"
476-493 Odoacer becomes King (Emperor) of Italy
476-1453 Eastern Empire survives as Byzantine empire/kingdom
Glossary
Acies triplex (tripartite battle formation): The set formation of the Roman Republican army when attacking.
Aediles: The aedileship originated as an office of the "Plebeian State" and became an optional magistracy in the regular cursus honorum; four were elected annually (six after reforms introduced under Caesar), two plebeian and two patrician (the latter termed "curule aediles"). They were in charge of the fabric of Rome, the marketplace, and public games. They had no imperil/m.
Augury: The practice of divination by several means, such as looking at the sky, birds, or interpreting omens.
Auspices: The reading of the gods' attitude toward a project by five means, including looking at the sky, birds, the sacred chickens feeding, or the behavior of four-legged beasts. All public business had to have favorable auspices in order to proceed. Since auspices lasted 24 hours, failure to secure favorable auspices on one day could be reversed the next.
Barbarization: Term for the growing presence and prominence of Germanic peoples in the western empire during the Late Empire.
Boni ("The Good Men"): A self-styling of the conservative senators, it denoted right-thinking, "decent" men in the senate who respected the traditional ways of doing things.
Capitecnsi ("Head Count"): The lowest social class in the Roman citizen census; having no property to declare to the censors, they were counted by their heads alone. hence the name. They were grouped into a single century in the comitia centuriata and voted last, if they got to do so at all (since voting stopped when a majority was reached).
Censors: Two magistrates elected every five years for an eighteen-month tenure of office. They counted citizens, assigned them to their classes, reviewed the register of senators and public morals, and let contracts for tax collection and public construction. They had no imperil/m.
Clientela ("c1ientship"): The social system of binding high and low families together by ties of granting favors and meeting obligations. Originated in the Regal Period.
Colony: Rome started settling colonies of Latins and citizens early, as a means of securing territory. Eventually "colony" became the highest status a subject
community (whether founded by Rome or not) could attain, whereby all freeborn male inhabitants became Roman citizens.
Comitia ("assembly"): Term applied to the Roman popular assemblies convened for voting on a law: the Curiate Assembly (comitia curiata); Centuriate Assembly (comitia centuriata); Tribal Assembly of the People (comitia populi tributa); and Tribal Assembly of the Plebs (comitia plebis tributa) a.k.a. the Council of the Plebs (collcilium plebis). All voting was done in blocks as appropriate for each assembly.
Consul: Chief annually elected Republican magistrate; two elected each year; top powers in political, judicial, and military spheres. They had the greatest imperil/m in the state.
Cursus honorum ("run of offices"): Enforced order of office holding in Republican Rome, based on criteria of wealth, age, and experience. The order of ascent was quaestor (or tribune of the plebs) => aedile (optional) => praetor => consul. Ex-consuls could also become censors or dictators, and patrician exconsuls could be elected as interreges.
Debt-bondage: The archaic system of ensuring cheap labor for the landowning gentry. In return for subsistence, poorer citizens became indentured servants of the landowners. One of the main issues that generated the Struggle of the Orders.
Dictator: Extraordinary magistracy instituted in crises. A dictator was appointed by a magistrate and suspended the normal government of Rome. He had no colleague but appointed an assistant called the Master of Horse (magister equitum). He held office for six months or until he had completed his specific task. A dictator had the combined imperium of the suspended consuls and was so entitled to twenty-four lictors.
Dominate (domillus, Latin for "master"): The term sometimes applied to the autocratic system of rule founded by Diocletian and also to the period of its operation (AD 284-476). The term is used chiefly to distinguish it from the Principate, as established by Augustus.
Donatism: Heresy popular in Africa in fourth and fifth centuries AD. It disputed the right of "traitors," Christians who complied with pagan demands for the burning of Scripture during the Great Persecution (AD 299-311), to be full members of the Church.
Editor: One who put on gladiatorial and related spectacles at personal expense for the entertainment of the commoners.
Epigraphy: The study of inscriptions (on any surface) that derive directly from the ancient world.
Faction: Term applied to politically allied groupings in Republican senatorial politics. Applied later to the four chariot-racing teams (white, blue, green, red) and their supporters.
Fasces: Bundles of rods carried by lictors as marks of a magistrate's imperil/Ill. Outside Rome an ax was added to the rods to symbolize the magistrate's ability to order either corporal or capital punishment.
Fasti: Lists of annual consuls kept at Rome and other towns, usually in the forum. Later, notable events were added under their appropriate years, making surviving fasti (mostly from Italian towns) valuable witnesses to events.
Freedman (Latin, libertus): A former slave raised to the status of citizenship upon manumission but still bound to the owner as a client.
Gallia (Gaul): The Roman name for the Celtic-controlled sector of mainland western Europe. It was divided into two parts, Callia Transalpina ("Gaul across the Alps") comprising France, Belgium, Gallia Cisalpina ("Gaul this side of the Alps"), in the Po Valley in north Italy. Both regions eventually came under Roman control.
Gens (plural, gentes): Normally translated as "clan," this refers to groupings of aristocratic families that seem to have their origin in the Regal Period.
Hellenism, Hellenization ("Hellas," the Greek word for "Greece"): The process whereby features of Greek culture were adopted by another culture in a variety of spheres. The Hellenization of Rome started early (sixth century BC at the latest) but increased in pace following direct contact with the Greek mainland in the second and third centuries Be.
Hellenistic Period/Kingdoms: Name given to the period after Alexander the Great's death in 323 BC; it ended in 31 Be. the year when Ptolemaic Egypt fell to Rome. The kingdoms into which Alexander's eastern empire divided and which existed in this period are termed "Hellenistic."
Imperial Period: Habitual designation for the period from Augustus to the "fall" in the fifth century, so covering the period 31 BC-AD 476. Usually subdivided into the Early Empire (Augustus-Nerva), the High Empire (Trajan-Severans), and the Late Empire (third-fifth centuries).
Imperiuml: Originally this term meant the "power of command" in a military context and was conferred on kings and, later, on consuls and praetors (and dictators). It was also used to denote the area over which the Romans had the power of command, and hence came to mean "empire" in a territorial sense.
Interpretatio Romana ("the Roman meaning"): The process in paganism of identifying newly encountered deities with established Roman divinities, such as the Punic Melqart with the Roman Hercules.
Interrex (plural, interreges): Extraordinary Republican magistracy elected when no consuls were in office. Interreges had to be patrician and held office for five days in order to conduct consular elections. They could be replaced after five days by another five-day interrex, this process continuing until consuls had been elected. They had no imperium.
Latin Rights (ius Latii): A half-citizenship conferred by Rome on deserving allies and colonists. Latin Rights embraced all the privileges and obligations of full citizenship minus the right to vote or stand office (though "naturalization" was possible by moving to Rome itself).
Lictors: Officials who carried the fasces in public as the badges of a magistrate's imperium. The number of lictors reflected the magistrate's relative level of imperil/m: six each for praetors (two when in Rome); twelve each for consuls; and twenty-four for dictators (but before Sulla, only twelve when in Rome).
Ludus: Any place of training or basic education, especially a gladiatorial training school.
Maiores ("elders, ancestors"): The influential and important ancestors of leading Roman families and of the state as a whole. Roman conservatism frequently looked to the mos maiorum ("the way of the ancestors") for examples and guidance.
Manus ("hand, authority"): An important concept in Roman domestic relations, the term denoted the authority-as represented by the hand and what was in it-wielded by fathers over their dependents, husbands over wives, owners over slaves, and so on.
Manumission ("release from authority"): The ceremony of freeing a slave.
Municipia ("township"): This technical term fluctuated in meaning over the centuries but basically described a township under Roman rule in which the freeborn inhabitants had Latin Rights or, later, full citizenship. Eventually it came to denote any self-ruling Italian community, and many provincial ones as well, that was not a citizen colony.
Mystery cults/religions: Predominantly eastern cults in which a select group of initiates went through secret rites about which they were sworn to secrecy (hence the "mystery") and thereby entered into a special relationship with the deity concerned (e.g., Mithras, Isis). A major rival to Christianity, such cults became very popular in the west in the second and third centuries AD.
Names, Roman: The full citizen's name usually had three elements: the praenomen (identifying the individual; very few were in general use), the nomen (identifying the "clan"), and the cognomen (identifying a family within a clan). Extra names (usually heritable) could be accumulated through adoption or as honorific titles, or as nicknames.
Oligarchy: "Rule by a few" selected usually on the basis of birth (aristocracy) or wealth (plutocracy) or a combination of the two. From the Greek oligos ("few") and arche ("1eadership").
Optimates ('The Excellent Men"): Term applied initially to broadly conservative senators who favored the traditional role of the senate at the state's helm. Eventually, it applied especially to die-hard conservatives, who opposed each and every departure from traditional procedure.
Order (ordo, the Latin word for "rank"): The term applied to the various social classes of citizens organized by status. Over the long course of Roman history five Orders appeared: Patrician, Plebeian, Senatorial, Equestrian, and Decurional.
Pax deorum: Term used to describe the desirable modus vivendi between gods and humans, it was maintained by proper ritual observance.
Paterfamilias ("father of the family"): The legal head of the Roman family, he was the eldest living male and wielded patria potestas ("the fatherly power") over all who lived under his roof.
Pontifex Maximus: chief priest of pagan Rome.
Populares ("Men of the People"): Term applied to (usually young) politicians who followed the lead of Ti. and e. Gracchus and employed the tribunate and plebeian assembly to implement their political agenda. Popu/ares. therefore, drummed up support by backing "popular" measures (land distributions, cheap or free grain, debt relief, etc.) and tended to adopt a strongly anti-senate posture.
Praetor: Second highest annually elected Republican magistracy. Originally assistants to the consuls, six were elected each year by 150 BC, with two more added by Sulla. They carried out judicial, political. and military functions. They had imperium. but lesser than that of the consuls.
Praetorian Guard/Prefect: Originally a special detachment of soldiers who guarded the CO's tent (praetorium) in an army camp, the term was adopted for the imperial guard of the emperor in Rome. Formed by Augustus and discreetly billeted in towns around Rome, they were barracked in a single camp on the outskirts of the city by Tiberius in AD 23. They numbered from 9,000-16.000 men, depending on the emperors' inclination. They played some role in imperial politics (it has often been exaggerated), killing some emperors (e.g., Gaius [Caligula]), elevating others (e.g., Claudius. Otho and Didius Julianus). Their commander. a prefect of Equestrian status. could be a person of great influence. as was the case with Sejanus under Tiberius or Macrinus, who himself became emperor in AD 217-218. They were disbanded by Constantine in AD 312.
Principate: Term used to describe both the imperial system established by Augustus and the period of its operation (27 BC-ca. AD 284).
Prodigia: Unasked-for signs from the gods, usually in the form of extraordinary or supernatural occurrences.
Publican; (literally "public men"): Term used to denote companies of (usually) equestrian members who purchased public contracts let by the censors. The most powerful were the tax collectors, who competed for contracts for particular regions, thus leaving those regions open to widespread abuse and extortion.
Quaestor: Most junior magistracy in the cursus honorum, ten were elected annually. They had financial duties and no imperium.
Regal Period: The period when kings ruled Rome, traditionally dated 753-509 Be.
Republican Period: Traditionally dated 509-31 BC, this long period of oligarchic rule by senate and magistrates is often subdivided into the Early Republic (down to 264 BC and the First Punic War), Middle Republic (264-133 BC). and the Late Republic (corresponding to the Roman Revolution, 133-31 BC).
Romanization: Modern historians' term for the process of making previously uncivilized regions into Roman ones (although it can be applied also to the adaptation of urbanized cultures to the Roman way).
Senate: Council of Roman aristocratic advisors, first to the kings, then to the magistrates of the Roman Republic, and finally to the Emperors. Its origins are obscure.
Senatus consultum (ultimum) ("[final] decree of the senate"): Advice issued by the senate to magistrates; it was not legally binding. The "final" (ultimum) decree was essentially a declaration of martial law first issued in 121 BC amid the disturbances surrounding e. Gracchus' attempt for a third tribunate and the last was issued when Caesar invaded Italy in January 49 Be.
Tribe: A grouping of Roman citizens defined by locality (like a parish or county). There were originally only three tribes (hence the name, derived from the Latin tres, meaning "three"), but the number of tribes increased with Roman expansion and was eventually set at 35 (4 urban, 31 rural).
Tribune of the Plebs: Not technically a magistrate, this was the officer attached to the Tribal Assembly of the Plebs; his title derives from the tribal organization of this assembly. He had to be plebeian, was sacrosanct and could not be harmed while in office, was entrusted with looking after the interests of the plebs and could convene discussion sessions (contiones) or voting sessions (comitiae) of the plebs. His most important power was a veto on meetings of all assemblies and the Senate and on all legislation.
Triumvirate: Latinate term applied to any board of three men empowered to carry out some task (e.g., Ti. Gracchus' land commission). Usually applied (technically incorrectly) to the pact between Crassus, Pompey and Caesar formed in 60 BC (the so-called First Triumvirate). The Second Triumvirate comprised of Octavian, Antony and Lepidus and was legally instituted in 43 Be.
Venatio ("the hunt"): Wild beast hunt and/or animal fights that constituted the first installment of the developed gladiatorial spectacle.
B.C.
1200 Trojan War; in legend. Aeneas arrives in Italy
1000 Settlement on Palatine
800 Huts on Palatine and in Forum
753 Traditional date of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus
753-509 "Regal Period"
600 Great Sewer (Cloaca Maxima) built; Forum area drained
510-509 Ejection of Tarquinius Superbus; establishment of Roman Republic
509-31 "Republican Period"
509 First treaty with Carthage
500-440 Incursions of Aequi and Volsci
494 First Secession of the Plebs
493 Treaty of Cassius between Rome and the Latins
449 Secession of the Plebs; Laws of the Twelve Tables published
396 Romans capture Etruscan city of Veii
390 Battle of Allia: Rome sacked by Gauls
367 Licinian laws; Plebeians admitted to magistracy
348 Treaty with Carthage renewed
343-4 First Samnite War
340-338 Revolt of Latin League
326-304 Second Samnite War
321 Roman humiliation at the Caudine Forks
306 Third treaty with Carthage
298-290 Third Samnite War
295 Battle of Sentinum
287 Hortensian law (lex Hortensia): plebiscita binding on all citizens
281-275 Invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus
280 Battle of Herac1ea
279 Battle of Asculum
275 Battle of Beneventum
273 "Friendship" established with Ptolemaic Egypt
264-241 First Punic War
262 Romans storm Agrigentum successfully
260 Roman naval victory at Mylae
255 Roman force in Africa destroyed; fleet destroyed in storm
241 Battle of the Aegates Islands; Sicily made Rome's first province
238 Sardinia and Corsica annexed
241-220 Carthaginian conquest of Spain by Barca family
229 Roman protectorate over IlIyria established
226 Ebro 'Treaty"; "friendship" with Saguntum precedes or follows it?
220 Gallia Cisalpina formed into a province
218-202 Second Punic War; invasion of Italy by Hannibal
218 Battle of Trebia
217 Battle of Lake Trasimene
216 Battle of Cannae
215 Philip V of Macedon allies with Hannibal and Carthage
209 Carthaginian forces in Spain defeated
207 Battle of the Metaurus River
203 Hannibal leaves Italy
202 Battle of Zama
215-204 First Macedonian War
200-196 Second Macedonian War; Macedon barred from Aegean Sea
196 Two provinces formed in Spain (Ulterior and Citerior)
197-133 Roman wars in Spain
192-189 War with Antiochus III of Syria
189 Battle of Magnesia
172-168 Third Macedonian War; Macedon divided into four republics
168 Battle of Pydna; Rhodes ruined by decree
149-146 Third Punic War; revolt in Macedon
147 Macedon formed into province of Macedonia
146 Revolt of Achaean League; Corinth destroyed; Carthage destroyed
135-133 Major slave war in Sicily
133 Tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus; Gracchus and 300 followers murdered in riot; Pergamum willed to Rome
129 Pergamum formed into province of Asia
123-121 Successive tribunates of Gaius Gracchus
121 First passage of senatlls cons G. Gracchus and 3000 followers killed in streetfighting
121 Gallia Transalpina (or Narbonensis) formed into province
111-105 lugurthine War in Numidia
107 First consulship of Marius
105 Battle of Arausio, Italy threatened by Cimbri and Teutones
105-102 Successive consulships of Marius (#s 2-5)
102 Battle of Aquae Sextiae, Teutones defeated
101 Battle of Vercellae, Cimbri defeated
100 Sixth consulship of Marius; senatus consultum ultimum passed
91 Murder of tribune M. Livius Drusus
91-88 Social (Italic) War; universal grant of Roman citizenship to allies
88-84 First Mithridatic War
88 Sulla marches on Rome; "Asiatic Vespers"
87-83 Cinna controls Rome
87 Marius and Cinna seize Rome
86 Seventh consulship of Marius; Marius dies (January)
85 Sulla makes Treaty of Dardanus with Mithridates
83 Sulla returns to Italy; civil war
83-81 Second Mithridatic War
82-79 Sulla dictator "to write laws and organize the state"; strengthens position of Senate, muzzles tribunate
82-81 The Sullan proscriptions
78 Death of Sulla; revolt of M. Aemlius Lepidus; Pompey given command
77-72 Pompey fights Sertorius in Spain
74-63 Third Mithridatic War
73-71 Slave revolt of Spartacus
71 Crassus defeats Spartacus; Pompey returns from Spain
70 Consulship of Pompey and Crassus; Sulla's restoration undone
67 Gabinian Law (lex Gabinia) confers imerium infinitum on Pompey
66 Pirates crushed; Manilian Law (lex Manilia) gives Pompey command against Mithridates
63 Death of Mithridates; Pompey reorganizcs the east; Catilinarian conspiracy in Italy
62 Pompey returns to Italy and "retires"
6O Caesar, Pompey and Crassus form First Triumvirate
51 First consulship of Caesar; legislation favors Triumvirs
58-49 Caesar conquers Gaul
56 Conference of Triumvirs at Luca
55 Pompey and Crass us consuls; legislation favors Triumvirs
54 Death of Julia, Caesar's daughter, Pompey's wife
53 Battle of Carrhae, Crassus killed invading Parthia
49 Caesar crosses Rubicon (10 January); Civil War begins; Caesar dictator for eleven days
49-45 Civil War between Caesar and Pompey
48 Caesar consul; Battle of Pharsalus; Caesar defeats Pompey; Pompey killed in Egypt
47-44 Successive dictatorships of Caesar
47 Caesar suppresses revolt in Asia (Veni, vidi, vici)
46-44 Successive consulships of Caesar
46 Battle of Thapsus in Africa; Cato commits suicide at Utica; Caesar's dictatorship extended for 10 years
45 Battle of Munda in Spain
44 Caesar·s dictatorship made lifelong (February); Caesar assassinated (15 March); Octavius adopted by Caesar and named Octavian; siege of Mutina begins
43 Octavian defeats Antony and. seizing Rome. becomes consul; Octavian. Antony and Lepidus form Second Triumvirate (23 November); proscriptions. death of Cicero (7 December)
42 Double Battles at Philippi (September), Triumvirs defeat Liberators
41 "Perusine War" in Italy
40 "The Peace of Brundisium" between Antony and Octavian
37 Triumvirate renewed
36 Defeat of Sextus Pompeius in Sicily; Lepidus squeezed out of Triumvirate
34 "The Donations of Alexandria"
34-31 Propaganda war between Antony and Octavian
33 Triumvirate lapses; Octavian's second consulship
32 Italy and the west take oath of allegiance to Octavian
31 Battle of Actium; Octavian defeats Antony and Cleopatra
31 BC-AD 476 "Imperial Period"
30 Egypt annexed as Roman province
27 BC-AD 14 Reign of Augustus as first Roman empcror
27 "First Constitutional Settlement" (13 January)
23 "Second Constitutional Settlement"
4 Birth of Jesus of Nazareth
2 Augustus "Father of his Country" (Pater Patriae)
A.D.
14 Death of Augustus (19 August)
14-68 Julio-Claudian Dynasty
14-37 Emperor Tiberius
24-31 Ascendancy of Sejanus
30 Crucifixion of Jesus
37-41 Emperor Gaius (Caligula)
41-54 Emperor Claudius
41 Gaius (Caligula) first emperor to be assassinated
54-68 Emperor Nero
64 Great Fire in Rome. Christians persecuted for first time
66-70 Jewish revolt in Palestine
68 Nero deposed by army revolt
68-69 Emperor Galba
69 Civil War; "Year of the Four Emperors": Galba (January) Otho (January-April), Vitellius (April-December); Vespasian (December)
69-96 Flavian Dynasty
69-79 Emperor Vespasian
70 Jerusalem sacked, Temple destroyed
73 Siege of Masada
79-81 Emperor Titus
81-96 Emperor Domitian
96-98 Emperor Nerva. first of the "Good Emperors"
98-180 "Adoptive Dynasty" (sometimes called the "Antonines")
98-117 Emperor Trajan
106 Formation of Dacia as province
114-17 Eastern wars of Trajan, three new provinces formed
117-138 Emperor Hadrian; abandons Trajan's eastern provinces
122 Construction on Hadrian's Wall in Britain begins
138-161 Emperor Antoninus Pius
150-200 Gradual formation of Germanic tribal confederations
268-270 Emperor Claudius II Gothicus
180-192 Emperor Commodus; adoptive succession abandoned
192 Commodus assassinated; Emperor Pertinax (January-March); emperorship auctioned in forum by Praetorian Guard
193-197 Civil war between Severus, Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger
193-235 Severan Dynasty
193-211 Emperor Septimius Severus
211-212 Emperor Geta (murdered by Caracalla)
211-217 Emperor Caracalla
217-218 Emperor Macrinus (non-Severan usurper)
218-222 Emperor Elagabulus
222-235 Emperor Severus Alexander
220 Emergence of Sassanid Persia in east
235-285 The Crisis of the Third Century; many emperors and usurpers including:
235-238 Emperor Maximinus
238-244 Emperors Gordian I, II, III
244-249 Philip the Arab
249-251 Emperor Decius
250-260 Persecutions of Christians by Decius and Valerian
161-169 Emperor Lucius Verus
161-180 Emperor Marcus Aurelius (rules alone 169- 180)
253-260 Emperor Valerian
253-268 Emperor Gallienus (rules alone, 260- )
253-258 Franks ravage Gaul and Spain
258 Declaration of 'The Empire of the Gallic Provinces" (Imperium Galliantm); Spain and Britain defect to new state
265-268 Gothic assault on Asia Minor and Greece
269-270 Palmyra controls Syria, Egypt, parts of Asia Minor
268-270 Emperor Claudius II Gothicus
270-275 Emperor Aurelian
273 Defeat of Palmyra
274 Imperium Galliarum defeated; empire reintegrated
275 Aurelian assassinated by officers
275-276 Emperor Tacitus
276-82 Emperor Probus
282 Probus murdered by his soldiers
282-284 Civil war
284-305 Emperor Dioc1etian; major reforms; establishment of Tetrarchy
299-311 "The Great Persecution" of Christians, particularly fierce under Tetrarch Galerius
305 Dioc1etian and Maximian retire
306 Constantine dec1ared Augustus by troops; Maxentius seizes Rome; Tetrarchy fails
306-337 Emperor Constantine the Great (rules alone, 324-337)
311 Galerius issues Edict of Toleration of Christianity
312 Battle of the Milvian bridge; Constantine's vision; Constantine gains control of western part of the empire
313 Edict of Milan tolerates all forms of worship
314 Council of bishops at Arelate
317-21 Persecution of Donatists in Africa
324 Constantinople founded
330 Constantinople becomes new capital of Roman empire
325 Council of Nicaea
337-361 Emperor Constantius II
361-363 Emperor lui ian the Apostate
364-375 Emperor Valentinian
364-378 Emperor Valens (east)
375-83 Emperor Gratian
378 Battle of Adrianople, Valens killed by Goths
379-395 Emperor Theodosius the Great gains control of whole empire
391 Edicts of intolerance against paganism; Christianity instituted as official religion
395 Empire officially divided in Theodosius' will into east (under Arcadius) and west (under Honorius)
395-423 Emperor Honorius (west)
395-408 Ascendancy of Stilicho
400 Cities and trade begin to decline in west; Germanic tribes settled in large numbers in Gaul and along Danube frontier
395-402 Alaric and the Visigoths harry east
402-410 Alaric turns to Italy
409 Vandals and others overrun Spain
410 Sack of Rome by Alaric (23 August); Britain abandoned
429 Vandals seize Africa
451-453 Attila the Hun invades west
451 Battle of Chalons; Huns defeated
453 Death of Attila
455 Vandals sack Rome
455-72 Ascendancy of Ricimer
475-476 Romulus Augustulus, last western emperor
476 Traditional date for the "Fall of the Roman Empire"
476-493 Odoacer becomes King (Emperor) of Italy
476-1453 Eastern Empire survives as Byzantine empire/kingdom
Glossary
Acies triplex (tripartite battle formation): The set formation of the Roman Republican army when attacking.
Aediles: The aedileship originated as an office of the "Plebeian State" and became an optional magistracy in the regular cursus honorum; four were elected annually (six after reforms introduced under Caesar), two plebeian and two patrician (the latter termed "curule aediles"). They were in charge of the fabric of Rome, the marketplace, and public games. They had no imperil/m.
Augury: The practice of divination by several means, such as looking at the sky, birds, or interpreting omens.
Auspices: The reading of the gods' attitude toward a project by five means, including looking at the sky, birds, the sacred chickens feeding, or the behavior of four-legged beasts. All public business had to have favorable auspices in order to proceed. Since auspices lasted 24 hours, failure to secure favorable auspices on one day could be reversed the next.
Barbarization: Term for the growing presence and prominence of Germanic peoples in the western empire during the Late Empire.
Boni ("The Good Men"): A self-styling of the conservative senators, it denoted right-thinking, "decent" men in the senate who respected the traditional ways of doing things.
Capitecnsi ("Head Count"): The lowest social class in the Roman citizen census; having no property to declare to the censors, they were counted by their heads alone. hence the name. They were grouped into a single century in the comitia centuriata and voted last, if they got to do so at all (since voting stopped when a majority was reached).
Censors: Two magistrates elected every five years for an eighteen-month tenure of office. They counted citizens, assigned them to their classes, reviewed the register of senators and public morals, and let contracts for tax collection and public construction. They had no imperil/m.
Clientela ("c1ientship"): The social system of binding high and low families together by ties of granting favors and meeting obligations. Originated in the Regal Period.
Colony: Rome started settling colonies of Latins and citizens early, as a means of securing territory. Eventually "colony" became the highest status a subject
community (whether founded by Rome or not) could attain, whereby all freeborn male inhabitants became Roman citizens.
Comitia ("assembly"): Term applied to the Roman popular assemblies convened for voting on a law: the Curiate Assembly (comitia curiata); Centuriate Assembly (comitia centuriata); Tribal Assembly of the People (comitia populi tributa); and Tribal Assembly of the Plebs (comitia plebis tributa) a.k.a. the Council of the Plebs (collcilium plebis). All voting was done in blocks as appropriate for each assembly.
Consul: Chief annually elected Republican magistrate; two elected each year; top powers in political, judicial, and military spheres. They had the greatest imperil/m in the state.
Cursus honorum ("run of offices"): Enforced order of office holding in Republican Rome, based on criteria of wealth, age, and experience. The order of ascent was quaestor (or tribune of the plebs) => aedile (optional) => praetor => consul. Ex-consuls could also become censors or dictators, and patrician exconsuls could be elected as interreges.
Debt-bondage: The archaic system of ensuring cheap labor for the landowning gentry. In return for subsistence, poorer citizens became indentured servants of the landowners. One of the main issues that generated the Struggle of the Orders.
Dictator: Extraordinary magistracy instituted in crises. A dictator was appointed by a magistrate and suspended the normal government of Rome. He had no colleague but appointed an assistant called the Master of Horse (magister equitum). He held office for six months or until he had completed his specific task. A dictator had the combined imperium of the suspended consuls and was so entitled to twenty-four lictors.
Dominate (domillus, Latin for "master"): The term sometimes applied to the autocratic system of rule founded by Diocletian and also to the period of its operation (AD 284-476). The term is used chiefly to distinguish it from the Principate, as established by Augustus.
Donatism: Heresy popular in Africa in fourth and fifth centuries AD. It disputed the right of "traitors," Christians who complied with pagan demands for the burning of Scripture during the Great Persecution (AD 299-311), to be full members of the Church.
Editor: One who put on gladiatorial and related spectacles at personal expense for the entertainment of the commoners.
Epigraphy: The study of inscriptions (on any surface) that derive directly from the ancient world.
Faction: Term applied to politically allied groupings in Republican senatorial politics. Applied later to the four chariot-racing teams (white, blue, green, red) and their supporters.
Fasces: Bundles of rods carried by lictors as marks of a magistrate's imperil/Ill. Outside Rome an ax was added to the rods to symbolize the magistrate's ability to order either corporal or capital punishment.
Fasti: Lists of annual consuls kept at Rome and other towns, usually in the forum. Later, notable events were added under their appropriate years, making surviving fasti (mostly from Italian towns) valuable witnesses to events.
Freedman (Latin, libertus): A former slave raised to the status of citizenship upon manumission but still bound to the owner as a client.
Gallia (Gaul): The Roman name for the Celtic-controlled sector of mainland western Europe. It was divided into two parts, Callia Transalpina ("Gaul across the Alps") comprising France, Belgium, Gallia Cisalpina ("Gaul this side of the Alps"), in the Po Valley in north Italy. Both regions eventually came under Roman control.
Gens (plural, gentes): Normally translated as "clan," this refers to groupings of aristocratic families that seem to have their origin in the Regal Period.
Hellenism, Hellenization ("Hellas," the Greek word for "Greece"): The process whereby features of Greek culture were adopted by another culture in a variety of spheres. The Hellenization of Rome started early (sixth century BC at the latest) but increased in pace following direct contact with the Greek mainland in the second and third centuries Be.
Hellenistic Period/Kingdoms: Name given to the period after Alexander the Great's death in 323 BC; it ended in 31 Be. the year when Ptolemaic Egypt fell to Rome. The kingdoms into which Alexander's eastern empire divided and which existed in this period are termed "Hellenistic."
Imperial Period: Habitual designation for the period from Augustus to the "fall" in the fifth century, so covering the period 31 BC-AD 476. Usually subdivided into the Early Empire (Augustus-Nerva), the High Empire (Trajan-Severans), and the Late Empire (third-fifth centuries).
Imperiuml: Originally this term meant the "power of command" in a military context and was conferred on kings and, later, on consuls and praetors (and dictators). It was also used to denote the area over which the Romans had the power of command, and hence came to mean "empire" in a territorial sense.
Interpretatio Romana ("the Roman meaning"): The process in paganism of identifying newly encountered deities with established Roman divinities, such as the Punic Melqart with the Roman Hercules.
Interrex (plural, interreges): Extraordinary Republican magistracy elected when no consuls were in office. Interreges had to be patrician and held office for five days in order to conduct consular elections. They could be replaced after five days by another five-day interrex, this process continuing until consuls had been elected. They had no imperium.
Latin Rights (ius Latii): A half-citizenship conferred by Rome on deserving allies and colonists. Latin Rights embraced all the privileges and obligations of full citizenship minus the right to vote or stand office (though "naturalization" was possible by moving to Rome itself).
Lictors: Officials who carried the fasces in public as the badges of a magistrate's imperium. The number of lictors reflected the magistrate's relative level of imperil/m: six each for praetors (two when in Rome); twelve each for consuls; and twenty-four for dictators (but before Sulla, only twelve when in Rome).
Ludus: Any place of training or basic education, especially a gladiatorial training school.
Maiores ("elders, ancestors"): The influential and important ancestors of leading Roman families and of the state as a whole. Roman conservatism frequently looked to the mos maiorum ("the way of the ancestors") for examples and guidance.
Manus ("hand, authority"): An important concept in Roman domestic relations, the term denoted the authority-as represented by the hand and what was in it-wielded by fathers over their dependents, husbands over wives, owners over slaves, and so on.
Manumission ("release from authority"): The ceremony of freeing a slave.
Municipia ("township"): This technical term fluctuated in meaning over the centuries but basically described a township under Roman rule in which the freeborn inhabitants had Latin Rights or, later, full citizenship. Eventually it came to denote any self-ruling Italian community, and many provincial ones as well, that was not a citizen colony.
Mystery cults/religions: Predominantly eastern cults in which a select group of initiates went through secret rites about which they were sworn to secrecy (hence the "mystery") and thereby entered into a special relationship with the deity concerned (e.g., Mithras, Isis). A major rival to Christianity, such cults became very popular in the west in the second and third centuries AD.
Names, Roman: The full citizen's name usually had three elements: the praenomen (identifying the individual; very few were in general use), the nomen (identifying the "clan"), and the cognomen (identifying a family within a clan). Extra names (usually heritable) could be accumulated through adoption or as honorific titles, or as nicknames.
Oligarchy: "Rule by a few" selected usually on the basis of birth (aristocracy) or wealth (plutocracy) or a combination of the two. From the Greek oligos ("few") and arche ("1eadership").
Optimates ('The Excellent Men"): Term applied initially to broadly conservative senators who favored the traditional role of the senate at the state's helm. Eventually, it applied especially to die-hard conservatives, who opposed each and every departure from traditional procedure.
Order (ordo, the Latin word for "rank"): The term applied to the various social classes of citizens organized by status. Over the long course of Roman history five Orders appeared: Patrician, Plebeian, Senatorial, Equestrian, and Decurional.
Pax deorum: Term used to describe the desirable modus vivendi between gods and humans, it was maintained by proper ritual observance.
Paterfamilias ("father of the family"): The legal head of the Roman family, he was the eldest living male and wielded patria potestas ("the fatherly power") over all who lived under his roof.
Pontifex Maximus: chief priest of pagan Rome.
Populares ("Men of the People"): Term applied to (usually young) politicians who followed the lead of Ti. and e. Gracchus and employed the tribunate and plebeian assembly to implement their political agenda. Popu/ares. therefore, drummed up support by backing "popular" measures (land distributions, cheap or free grain, debt relief, etc.) and tended to adopt a strongly anti-senate posture.
Praetor: Second highest annually elected Republican magistracy. Originally assistants to the consuls, six were elected each year by 150 BC, with two more added by Sulla. They carried out judicial, political. and military functions. They had imperium. but lesser than that of the consuls.
Praetorian Guard/Prefect: Originally a special detachment of soldiers who guarded the CO's tent (praetorium) in an army camp, the term was adopted for the imperial guard of the emperor in Rome. Formed by Augustus and discreetly billeted in towns around Rome, they were barracked in a single camp on the outskirts of the city by Tiberius in AD 23. They numbered from 9,000-16.000 men, depending on the emperors' inclination. They played some role in imperial politics (it has often been exaggerated), killing some emperors (e.g., Gaius [Caligula]), elevating others (e.g., Claudius. Otho and Didius Julianus). Their commander. a prefect of Equestrian status. could be a person of great influence. as was the case with Sejanus under Tiberius or Macrinus, who himself became emperor in AD 217-218. They were disbanded by Constantine in AD 312.
Principate: Term used to describe both the imperial system established by Augustus and the period of its operation (27 BC-ca. AD 284).
Prodigia: Unasked-for signs from the gods, usually in the form of extraordinary or supernatural occurrences.
Publican; (literally "public men"): Term used to denote companies of (usually) equestrian members who purchased public contracts let by the censors. The most powerful were the tax collectors, who competed for contracts for particular regions, thus leaving those regions open to widespread abuse and extortion.
Quaestor: Most junior magistracy in the cursus honorum, ten were elected annually. They had financial duties and no imperium.
Regal Period: The period when kings ruled Rome, traditionally dated 753-509 Be.
Republican Period: Traditionally dated 509-31 BC, this long period of oligarchic rule by senate and magistrates is often subdivided into the Early Republic (down to 264 BC and the First Punic War), Middle Republic (264-133 BC). and the Late Republic (corresponding to the Roman Revolution, 133-31 BC).
Romanization: Modern historians' term for the process of making previously uncivilized regions into Roman ones (although it can be applied also to the adaptation of urbanized cultures to the Roman way).
Senate: Council of Roman aristocratic advisors, first to the kings, then to the magistrates of the Roman Republic, and finally to the Emperors. Its origins are obscure.
Senatus consultum (ultimum) ("[final] decree of the senate"): Advice issued by the senate to magistrates; it was not legally binding. The "final" (ultimum) decree was essentially a declaration of martial law first issued in 121 BC amid the disturbances surrounding e. Gracchus' attempt for a third tribunate and the last was issued when Caesar invaded Italy in January 49 Be.
Tribe: A grouping of Roman citizens defined by locality (like a parish or county). There were originally only three tribes (hence the name, derived from the Latin tres, meaning "three"), but the number of tribes increased with Roman expansion and was eventually set at 35 (4 urban, 31 rural).
Tribune of the Plebs: Not technically a magistrate, this was the officer attached to the Tribal Assembly of the Plebs; his title derives from the tribal organization of this assembly. He had to be plebeian, was sacrosanct and could not be harmed while in office, was entrusted with looking after the interests of the plebs and could convene discussion sessions (contiones) or voting sessions (comitiae) of the plebs. His most important power was a veto on meetings of all assemblies and the Senate and on all legislation.
Triumvirate: Latinate term applied to any board of three men empowered to carry out some task (e.g., Ti. Gracchus' land commission). Usually applied (technically incorrectly) to the pact between Crassus, Pompey and Caesar formed in 60 BC (the so-called First Triumvirate). The Second Triumvirate comprised of Octavian, Antony and Lepidus and was legally instituted in 43 Be.
Venatio ("the hunt"): Wild beast hunt and/or animal fights that constituted the first installment of the developed gladiatorial spectacle.
Monday, June 18, 2007
History of the English Language
History of the English Language
OLD ENGLISH
Every letter was pronounced and words were spelled as they were pronounced. Each dialect had its own spelling.
Old English had European vowel sounds: Ah, Eh, Ee, Oh, Oo.
Old English vocabulary was deeply influenced by Norse (Scandinavian words). Some Norse words survived along with their English counterparts. For example:
Ship [OE] = Skip [N] (today: a skipper pilots a ship)
Shirt [OE]= Skirt [N] (today: both are a piece of clothing)
Church [OE]= Kirk [N] (today: both are a place of worship in Scotland)
Old English was fully inflected and had case endings, verb tense endings, and gender forms much like German has today. Some of this is fossilized in the King James Bible:
For example: dost, doth, etc. (inflections of the verb “to do”).
Old English also had both 2nd person singular and plural pronouns: Thou and You. Using the second person plural “you” was the polite way to address a single person, while the singular form “thou” was the informal way to address someone. The King James Bible fossilized the use of “Thou” and “Thee” and “Thine” in reference to God since the informal form of address was always used for God in all European languages. Thus, what sounds very formal to us today was actually the informal and intimate way to address someone. By the seventeenth century the second person singular pronoun (thou, etc.) had dropped out and the second person plural pronoun (you) did double duty.
Old English verbs were strong verbs (the vowel changed to indicate tense): sing, sang, sung. However, all new verbs are weak verbs (add “–ed” and “have” to indicate tense): walk, walked, have walked. All new verbs being coined today (since the fifteenth century) are weak verbs.
MIDDLE ENGLISH
The Norman Conquest of 1066 dramatically changed the English language. The northern French dialect of the Norman rulers affected the development of the English language for 300 years.
The was a massive influx of French words into the English vocabulary. As with the Norse words, many of the English words survived along with the French words. For example:
Chalet = Castle
Chapeau = Cap
Chattle = Cattle
Guardian = Warden
Guarantee = Warranty
Gauge = Wage
Salon = Saloon
French also had a strong influence on English vocabulary for food. In Old English, the same word used for animal was also used for the name of the dish. After the eleventh century, however, French words were used for the dishes and not the English animal words. For example:
Pig = Pork
Cow = Beef
Calf = Veal
Lamb = Mutton
There were many dialects in England, and some of them were mutually unintelligible. A man from the south traveling in the north might be mistaken for a foreigner and find that communication was impossible.
The government also began to standardized spelling. Spelling was determined by the ruling dialect, so that words were no longer spelled as they were pronounced but by the standard set by the government. With the introduction of the printing press to England, standardized spelling became universal and unchanging.
As prepositions became more popular, they began to supercede the use of case endings. By the end of the Middle English period, the case endings had all but disappeared.
There was also an increase in the use of the continuous aspect of the verb, using the –ing verb endings.
By this time, England had become a trilingual society: English, French, and Latin. English was spoken by the common man, French by the court, and Latin by the clergy. Most scholarly works were in Latin, and most English works were translated into Latin. One artifact of this reality can still be seen in the wedding vows still used by some: “to love, honor and cherish.” Love is an Old English word, honor comes from French, and cherish is Latin. All three words mean basically the same thing, indicating that the vows grew out of this trilingual culture.
MODERN ENGLISH
The most dramatic change to the English Language came in the Great Vowel Shift (15th century). English pronunciation shifted from its European roots (Ah Eh Ee Oh Oo), to its present pronunciation of Ay Ee Ai Ohh You. Even Shakespeare had a very difficult time understanding Middle English works, such as Chaucer.
Shakespeare, along with his contemporaries, began to coin many new words. Shakespeare’s vocabulary is so extensive because many of the words he used were springing into existence as he wrote.
One dramatic change during this time was the propensity to turn nouns into verbs, for example: hound = to hound.
There was also an influx of new scientific words that later took on metaphorical meanings, for example: Attraction, which originally referred to the force that caused to bodies to move closer to each other, and later took on the metaphorical use.
There was also the introduction of the nominalization of verbs using the “–ing” ending.
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and Noah Webster’s Dictionary (1828) in America started the modern trend of lexicography of the English language.
PIDGIN ENGLISH AND CREOLE
Pidgin is a makeshift language used by two or more groups of people that do not share a common language, in such situations as trade or slavery. Creole is a fully developed language that evolved out of a Pidgin.
OLD ENGLISH
Every letter was pronounced and words were spelled as they were pronounced. Each dialect had its own spelling.
Old English had European vowel sounds: Ah, Eh, Ee, Oh, Oo.
Old English vocabulary was deeply influenced by Norse (Scandinavian words). Some Norse words survived along with their English counterparts. For example:
Ship [OE] = Skip [N] (today: a skipper pilots a ship)
Shirt [OE]= Skirt [N] (today: both are a piece of clothing)
Church [OE]= Kirk [N] (today: both are a place of worship in Scotland)
Old English was fully inflected and had case endings, verb tense endings, and gender forms much like German has today. Some of this is fossilized in the King James Bible:
For example: dost, doth, etc. (inflections of the verb “to do”).
Old English also had both 2nd person singular and plural pronouns: Thou and You. Using the second person plural “you” was the polite way to address a single person, while the singular form “thou” was the informal way to address someone. The King James Bible fossilized the use of “Thou” and “Thee” and “Thine” in reference to God since the informal form of address was always used for God in all European languages. Thus, what sounds very formal to us today was actually the informal and intimate way to address someone. By the seventeenth century the second person singular pronoun (thou, etc.) had dropped out and the second person plural pronoun (you) did double duty.
Old English verbs were strong verbs (the vowel changed to indicate tense): sing, sang, sung. However, all new verbs are weak verbs (add “–ed” and “have” to indicate tense): walk, walked, have walked. All new verbs being coined today (since the fifteenth century) are weak verbs.
MIDDLE ENGLISH
The Norman Conquest of 1066 dramatically changed the English language. The northern French dialect of the Norman rulers affected the development of the English language for 300 years.
The was a massive influx of French words into the English vocabulary. As with the Norse words, many of the English words survived along with the French words. For example:
Chalet = Castle
Chapeau = Cap
Chattle = Cattle
Guardian = Warden
Guarantee = Warranty
Gauge = Wage
Salon = Saloon
French also had a strong influence on English vocabulary for food. In Old English, the same word used for animal was also used for the name of the dish. After the eleventh century, however, French words were used for the dishes and not the English animal words. For example:
Pig = Pork
Cow = Beef
Calf = Veal
Lamb = Mutton
There were many dialects in England, and some of them were mutually unintelligible. A man from the south traveling in the north might be mistaken for a foreigner and find that communication was impossible.
The government also began to standardized spelling. Spelling was determined by the ruling dialect, so that words were no longer spelled as they were pronounced but by the standard set by the government. With the introduction of the printing press to England, standardized spelling became universal and unchanging.
As prepositions became more popular, they began to supercede the use of case endings. By the end of the Middle English period, the case endings had all but disappeared.
There was also an increase in the use of the continuous aspect of the verb, using the –ing verb endings.
By this time, England had become a trilingual society: English, French, and Latin. English was spoken by the common man, French by the court, and Latin by the clergy. Most scholarly works were in Latin, and most English works were translated into Latin. One artifact of this reality can still be seen in the wedding vows still used by some: “to love, honor and cherish.” Love is an Old English word, honor comes from French, and cherish is Latin. All three words mean basically the same thing, indicating that the vows grew out of this trilingual culture.
MODERN ENGLISH
The most dramatic change to the English Language came in the Great Vowel Shift (15th century). English pronunciation shifted from its European roots (Ah Eh Ee Oh Oo), to its present pronunciation of Ay Ee Ai Ohh You. Even Shakespeare had a very difficult time understanding Middle English works, such as Chaucer.
Shakespeare, along with his contemporaries, began to coin many new words. Shakespeare’s vocabulary is so extensive because many of the words he used were springing into existence as he wrote.
One dramatic change during this time was the propensity to turn nouns into verbs, for example: hound = to hound.
There was also an influx of new scientific words that later took on metaphorical meanings, for example: Attraction, which originally referred to the force that caused to bodies to move closer to each other, and later took on the metaphorical use.
There was also the introduction of the nominalization of verbs using the “–ing” ending.
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and Noah Webster’s Dictionary (1828) in America started the modern trend of lexicography of the English language.
PIDGIN ENGLISH AND CREOLE
Pidgin is a makeshift language used by two or more groups of people that do not share a common language, in such situations as trade or slavery. Creole is a fully developed language that evolved out of a Pidgin.
Natural and Moral Authority
Natural and Moral Authority
Natural authority is controlled by natural laws that cannot be violated because all actions have consequences. Human beings have the freedom and power to choose, so they have power over the rest of creation.
Moral authority is the principled use of our power to choose, so that we tap into nature when we follow principles in our actions and relationships.
Natural laws (like gravity) and principles (like respect, honesty, integrity, kindness, service and fairness) control the consequences of our choices. We choose our actions but we don’t choose the consequences of those actions; they are determined by natural laws and principles. By the principled, humble use of freedom and power, the humble person obtains moral authority.
Values are social norms, and are personal, emotional, subjective and arguable. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Are my values based on principles?”
Consequences are governed by principles; behavior is governed by values; therefore, value principles.
Moral vertigo occurs when your values are not based on principles, resulting in a loss of what is true and important. You must take the time and effort to center yourself and anchor your values on changeless principles.
The key task is to determine where “True North” is and then align everything with that. Otherwise, you will live with the inevitable consequences of bad choices. Moral authority requires the sacrifice of short-term selfish interests and the exercise of courage in the subordinating social values to principles.
From Steven Covey, The 8th Habit.
Natural authority is controlled by natural laws that cannot be violated because all actions have consequences. Human beings have the freedom and power to choose, so they have power over the rest of creation.
Moral authority is the principled use of our power to choose, so that we tap into nature when we follow principles in our actions and relationships.
Natural laws (like gravity) and principles (like respect, honesty, integrity, kindness, service and fairness) control the consequences of our choices. We choose our actions but we don’t choose the consequences of those actions; they are determined by natural laws and principles. By the principled, humble use of freedom and power, the humble person obtains moral authority.
Values are social norms, and are personal, emotional, subjective and arguable. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Are my values based on principles?”
Consequences are governed by principles; behavior is governed by values; therefore, value principles.
Moral vertigo occurs when your values are not based on principles, resulting in a loss of what is true and important. You must take the time and effort to center yourself and anchor your values on changeless principles.
The key task is to determine where “True North” is and then align everything with that. Otherwise, you will live with the inevitable consequences of bad choices. Moral authority requires the sacrifice of short-term selfish interests and the exercise of courage in the subordinating social values to principles.
From Steven Covey, The 8th Habit.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Chinese History
Chinese Dynasties
Xia 2100 BC
Shang 1500 BC
Qin 221-207 BC
Zhou 1045 BC
Warring States 480-221 BC
Han 202 BC – 220 AD
Three Kingdoms 220-280 AD
Sui 581-618 AD
Tang 618-906 AD
Five Dynasties 907-960 AD
Liao 907-1125 AD
Northern Song 960-1127 AD
Jin 1126-1234 AD
Southern Song 1127-1279 AD
Yuan 1260-1368 AD
Ming 1368-1644 AD
Qing 1636-1912 AD
Chinese History Timeline
500,000 B.C.E. Peking Man hominid fossils
10,000 B.C.E Domestication of rice in Jiangxi
4600 B.C.E Neolithic village cultures in northern China
2100 B.C.E Xia "dynasty" in Yellow River valley
1500 B.C.E Shang state on North China Plain
1045 B.C.E Zhou Conquest
722-481 B.C.E Spring and Autumn period
480-221 B.C.E Warring States period
207 B.C.E Fall of Qin dynasty
202 B.C.E.-220 C.E Han dynasty
141-87 B.C.E Reign of Wudi
81 B.C.E Debate on Salt and Iron
9-23 C.E Usurpation of Wang Mang
100 C.E First Buddhist temple in China
182 C.E Yellow Turban uprising
220-280 Three Kingdoms period
310 Turkic migrations into northern China begin
581-618 Sui dynasty
618-906 Tang dynasty
684-705 Reign of Empress Wu Zetian
713-756 Reign of Xuanzong
755-763 An Lushan rebellion
768-824 Han Yu
845 Official suppression of Buddhism
907-960 Five Dynasties period
907-1125 Liao dynasty of the Khitan people
960-1127 Northern Song dynasty
1126-1234 Jin dynasty of the Jurchen people
1206 Mongol quriltai elects Temujin as Great Khan
1127-1279 Southern Song dynasty
1130-1200 Zhu Xi
1260-1368 Mongol Yuan dynasty
1272-1290 Marco Polo in China
1313 Mongols restore Confucian examinations
1340s Great plague in Yangzi River valley
1368-1644 Ming dynasty
1402 Zhu Di usurps the throne
1405-1435 Ming voyages of exploration
1572-1620 Reign of Wanli emperor
1580 "Single Whip" tax reforms
1626 Nurhaci inaugurates Manchu language use
1636 Qing dynasty proclaimed by Manchus
1644 Fall of Ming dynasty and Manchu invasion
1661-1722 Reign of Kangxi
1673-1681 Rebellion of the Wu Sangui
1712 Kangxi's tax edict
1723-1735 Reign of Yongzheng
1736-1795 Reign of Qianlong
1793 British trade mission to China
1813 Secret society rebellion against Qing
1839-1842 Opium War
1850-1864 Taiping Rebellion
1864-1895 Self-Strengthening Movement
1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War
1898-100 Days Reforms
1899-1900 Boxer Rebellion
1905 Confucian examinations abolished
1911 October 11, Wuhan mutiny sets off revolution
1912 February 12, Abdication of last emperor
1912 February 15, Yuan Shikai becomes president
1916 Yuan Shikai tries to become emperor
1919 May 4, Student demonstration in Beijing
1921 July, Founding of Chinese Communist Party
1922-1927 First United Front of Communists and Nationalists
1926 Northern Expedition of Chiang Kaishek
1927 April, Split between CCP and GMD
1929-1934 Jiangxi period of Chinese Communists
1931 September 18, Japanese invade Manchuria
1934 October 1935 October Long March
1936 December, Xian incident: Chiang "arrested"
1937-1945 Second United Front
1937 July 7, Marco Polo Bridge incident: Japanese invasion
1945 End of war with Japan
1945-1949 Civil war between Communists and Nationalists
1948 Nationalists massacre Taiwanese
1949 Nationalists withdraw to Taiwan
1949 October 1, Mao proclaims People's Republic of China
1949-1952 Land reform
1950 Marriage law
1958-1959 Great Leap Forward
1959 August, Lushan Plenum: Peng Dehuai purged, Mao retreats from daily leadership
1962 Socialist Education Movement
1966-1969 Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
1976 Death of Mao Zedong
1978-1994 Leadership of Deng Xiaoping
1989 Tiananmen student movement, suppressed June 4
1999 China and the United States agree on WTO membership
Xia 2100 BC
Shang 1500 BC
Qin 221-207 BC
Zhou 1045 BC
Warring States 480-221 BC
Han 202 BC – 220 AD
Three Kingdoms 220-280 AD
Sui 581-618 AD
Tang 618-906 AD
Five Dynasties 907-960 AD
Liao 907-1125 AD
Northern Song 960-1127 AD
Jin 1126-1234 AD
Southern Song 1127-1279 AD
Yuan 1260-1368 AD
Ming 1368-1644 AD
Qing 1636-1912 AD
Chinese History Timeline
500,000 B.C.E. Peking Man hominid fossils
10,000 B.C.E Domestication of rice in Jiangxi
4600 B.C.E Neolithic village cultures in northern China
2100 B.C.E Xia "dynasty" in Yellow River valley
1500 B.C.E Shang state on North China Plain
1045 B.C.E Zhou Conquest
722-481 B.C.E Spring and Autumn period
480-221 B.C.E Warring States period
207 B.C.E Fall of Qin dynasty
202 B.C.E.-220 C.E Han dynasty
141-87 B.C.E Reign of Wudi
81 B.C.E Debate on Salt and Iron
9-23 C.E Usurpation of Wang Mang
100 C.E First Buddhist temple in China
182 C.E Yellow Turban uprising
220-280 Three Kingdoms period
310 Turkic migrations into northern China begin
581-618 Sui dynasty
618-906 Tang dynasty
684-705 Reign of Empress Wu Zetian
713-756 Reign of Xuanzong
755-763 An Lushan rebellion
768-824 Han Yu
845 Official suppression of Buddhism
907-960 Five Dynasties period
907-1125 Liao dynasty of the Khitan people
960-1127 Northern Song dynasty
1126-1234 Jin dynasty of the Jurchen people
1206 Mongol quriltai elects Temujin as Great Khan
1127-1279 Southern Song dynasty
1130-1200 Zhu Xi
1260-1368 Mongol Yuan dynasty
1272-1290 Marco Polo in China
1313 Mongols restore Confucian examinations
1340s Great plague in Yangzi River valley
1368-1644 Ming dynasty
1402 Zhu Di usurps the throne
1405-1435 Ming voyages of exploration
1572-1620 Reign of Wanli emperor
1580 "Single Whip" tax reforms
1626 Nurhaci inaugurates Manchu language use
1636 Qing dynasty proclaimed by Manchus
1644 Fall of Ming dynasty and Manchu invasion
1661-1722 Reign of Kangxi
1673-1681 Rebellion of the Wu Sangui
1712 Kangxi's tax edict
1723-1735 Reign of Yongzheng
1736-1795 Reign of Qianlong
1793 British trade mission to China
1813 Secret society rebellion against Qing
1839-1842 Opium War
1850-1864 Taiping Rebellion
1864-1895 Self-Strengthening Movement
1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War
1898-100 Days Reforms
1899-1900 Boxer Rebellion
1905 Confucian examinations abolished
1911 October 11, Wuhan mutiny sets off revolution
1912 February 12, Abdication of last emperor
1912 February 15, Yuan Shikai becomes president
1916 Yuan Shikai tries to become emperor
1919 May 4, Student demonstration in Beijing
1921 July, Founding of Chinese Communist Party
1922-1927 First United Front of Communists and Nationalists
1926 Northern Expedition of Chiang Kaishek
1927 April, Split between CCP and GMD
1929-1934 Jiangxi period of Chinese Communists
1931 September 18, Japanese invade Manchuria
1934 October 1935 October Long March
1936 December, Xian incident: Chiang "arrested"
1937-1945 Second United Front
1937 July 7, Marco Polo Bridge incident: Japanese invasion
1945 End of war with Japan
1945-1949 Civil war between Communists and Nationalists
1948 Nationalists massacre Taiwanese
1949 Nationalists withdraw to Taiwan
1949 October 1, Mao proclaims People's Republic of China
1949-1952 Land reform
1950 Marriage law
1958-1959 Great Leap Forward
1959 August, Lushan Plenum: Peng Dehuai purged, Mao retreats from daily leadership
1962 Socialist Education Movement
1966-1969 Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
1976 Death of Mao Zedong
1978-1994 Leadership of Deng Xiaoping
1989 Tiananmen student movement, suppressed June 4
1999 China and the United States agree on WTO membership
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)