title
stringlengths 1
251
| section
stringlengths 0
6.12k
| text
stringlengths 0
716k
|
|---|---|---|
Ancus Marcius
|
War
|
War
thumb|left|Fictional 16th-century depiction in the Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum
According to Livy, the accession of Ancus emboldened the Latin League, who assumed that the new king would follow the pious pursuit of peace adopted by his grandfather, Numa Pompilius. The Latins accordingly made an incursion on Roman lands, and gave a contemptuous reply to a Roman embassy seeking restitution for the damage. Ancus responded by declaring war on the Latins. Livy says that this event was notable as the first time that the Romans declared war by means of the rites of the fetials.
thumb|A coin depicting Ancus Marcius and Numa Pompilius side-by-side
thumb|Ostia on a map of Rome (highlighted in bright red)
Ancus Marcius marched from Rome with a newly levied army and took the Latin town of Politorium (situated near the town of Lanuvium) by storm. Its residents were removed to settle on the Aventine Hill in Rome as new citizens, following the Roman traditions from wars with the Sabines and Albans. When the other Latins subsequently occupied the empty town of Politorium, Ancus took the town again and demolished it.Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 1:33 The Latin villages of Tellenae and Ficana were also sacked and demolished.
The war then focused on the Latin town of Medullia. The town had a strong garrison and was well fortified. Several engagements took place outside the town and the Romans were eventually victorious. Ancus returned to Rome with a large amount of loot. More Latins were brought to Rome as citizens and were settled at the foot of the Aventine near the Palatine Hill, by the temple of Murcia.
Ancus Marcius incorporated the Janiculum into the city, fortifying it with a wall and connecting it with the city by a wooden bridge across the Tiber, the Pons Sublicius. To protect the bridge from enemy attacks, Ancus had the end that was facing the Janiculum fortified. Ancus also took over Fidenea to expand Rome's influence across the Tiber.
On the land side of the city he constructed the Fossa Quiritium, a ditch fortification. He also built Rome's first prison, the Mamertine prison.
He then extended the Roman territory, founding the port of Ostia, establishing salt-works around the port, and taking the Silva Maesia, an area of coastal forest north of the Tiber, from the Veientes.
He expanded the temple of Jupiter Feretrius to reflect these territorial successes.
According to a reconstruction of the Fasti Triumphales, Ancus Marcius celebrated at least one triumph, over the Sabines and Veientes.
|
Ancus Marcius
|
Death and successor
|
Death and successor
Ancus Marcius is reported to have died of natural causes after a rule of 24 years.Livy, ab urbe condita libri, I He had two sons, one of which would likely take the throne. A member of Ancus' court, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, ensured that Ancus' sons would be out of Rome so he could put together an election where he would gain the support of the Roman people.
Ancus Marcius was succeeded by his friend Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, who was ultimately assassinated by the sons of Ancus Marcius.Livy, Ab Urbe Condita Later, during the Republic and the Empire, the prominent gens Marcia claimed descent from Ancus Marcius.
|
Ancus Marcius
|
References
|
References
Category:670s BC births
Category:610s BC deaths
Category:7th-century BC Romans
Category:7th-century BC monarchs
Category:Characters in Book VI of the Aeneid
Category:Kings of Rome
Ancus
Category:Year of birth unknown
|
Ancus Marcius
|
Table of Content
|
short description, Background, First acts as King, War, Death and successor, References
|
Andaman Islands
|
short description
|
thumb|upright=1.2|
The Andaman Islands () are an archipelago, made up of 200 islands, in the northeastern Indian Ocean about southwest off the coasts of Myanmar's Ayeyarwady Region. Together with the Nicobar Islands to their south, the Andamans serve as a maritime boundary between the Bay of Bengal to the west and the Andaman Sea to the east. Most of the islands are part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a Union Territory of India, while the Coco Islands and Preparis Island are part of the Yangon Region of Myanmar.
The Andaman Islands are home to the Andamanese, a group of indigenous people made up of a number of tribes, including the Jarawa and Sentinelese. While some of the islands can be visited with permits, entry to others, including North Sentinel Island, is banned by law. The Sentinelese are generally hostile to visitors and have had little contact with any other people. The Indian government and coast guard protect their right to privacy.
|
Andaman Islands
|
History
|
History
thumb|The distributions of different Andamanese peoples, languages, and dialects at the time of British contact compared to the present-day.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Etymology
|
Etymology
In the 13th century, the name of Andaman appears in Late Middle Chinese as ʔˠanH dɑ mˠan (, pronounced yàntuómán in modern Mandarin Chinese) in the book Zhu Fan Zhi by Zhao Rukuo. In Chapter 38 of the book, Countries in the Sea, Zhao Rukuo specifies that going from Lambri (Sumatra) to Ceylan, an unfavourable wind makes ships drift towards the Andaman Islands. In the 15th century, Andaman was recorded as "Andeman Mountain" (安得蠻山, pronounced āndémán shān in modern Mandarin Chinese) during the voyages of Zheng He in the Mao Kun map of the Wu Bei Zhi.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Early inhabitants
|
Early inhabitants
The oldest archaeological evidence for the habitation of the islands dates to the 1st millennium BC. Genetic evidence suggests that the indigenous Andamanese peoples share a common origin, and that the islands were settled sometime after 26,000 years ago, possibly at the end of the Last Glacial Period, when sea levels were much lower reducing the distance between the Andaman Islands and the Asian mainland, with genetic estimates suggesting that the two main linguistic groups diverged around 16,000 years ago. Andamanese peoples are a genetically distinct group highly divergent from other Asians.thumb|left|The Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal were said to be inhabited by wolf-headed people, who were depicted in a "book of wonders" produced in Paris in the early 15th century.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Chola empire
|
Chola empire
Rajendra I took over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. He used the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as a strategic naval base to launch an expedition against the Sriwijaya Empire. The Cholas called the island Ma-Nakkavaram ("great open/naked land"), found in the Thanjavur inscription of 1050 CE. European traveller Marco Polo (12th–13th century) also referred to this island as 'Necuverann' and a corrupted form of the Tamil name Nakkavaram would have led to the modern name Nicobar during the British colonial period.
|
Andaman Islands
|
British colonial era
|
British colonial era
In 1789, the Bengal Presidency established a naval base and penal colony on Chatham Island in the southeast bay of Great Andaman. The settlement is now known as Port Blair (after the Bombay Marine lieutenant Archibald Blair who founded it). After two years, the colony was moved to the northeast part of Great Andaman and was named Port Cornwallis after Admiral William Cornwallis. However, there was much disease and death in the penal colony and the government ceased operating it in May 1796.
In 1824, Port Cornwallis was the rendezvous of the fleet carrying the army to the First Burmese War. In the 1830s and 1840s, shipwrecked crews who landed on the Andamans were often attacked and killed by the natives and the islands had a reputation for cannibalism. The loss of the Runnymede and the Briton in 1844 during the same storm, while transporting goods and passengers between India and Australia, and the continuous attacks launched by the natives, which the survivors fought off, alarmed the British government.Kingston, W.H.G. (1873) Shipwrecks and Disasters at Sea. George Routledge and Sons, London. In 1855, the government proposed another settlement on the islands, including a convict establishment, but the Indian Rebellion of 1857 forced a delay in its construction. However, because the rebellion led to the British holding a large number of prisoners, it made the new Andaman settlement and prison urgently necessary. Construction began in November 1857 at Port Blair using inmates' labour, avoiding the vicinity of a salt swamp that seemed to have been the source of many of the earlier problems at Port Cornwallis.
The Battle of Aberdeen was fought on 17 May 1859 between the Great Andamanese tribe and the British. Today, a memorial stands in Andaman water sports complex as a tribute to the people who died in the battle. Fearful of British intentions and with help from an escaped convict from Cellular Jail, the Great Andamanese attacked the British settlement, but they were outnumbered and soon suffered heavy casualties. Later, it was identified that an escaped convict named Dudhnath Tewari had changed sides and informed the British about the tribe's plans.
In 1867, the merchantman Nineveh was wrecked on the reef of North Sentinel Island. The 86 survivors reached the beach in the ship's boats. On the third day, they were attacked with iron-tipped spears by naked islanders. One person from the ship escaped in a boat and the others were later rescued by a British Royal Navy ship.
For some time, sickness and mortality were high, but swamp reclamation and extensive forest clearance continued. The Andaman colony became notorious with the murder of the Viceroy Richard Southwell Bourke, 6th Earl of Mayo, on a visit to the settlement (8 February 1872), by a Pathan from Afghanistan, Sher Ali Afridi. In the same year, the two island groups Andaman and Nicobar, were united under a chief commissioner residing at Port Blair.
thumb|right|The Ross Island prison headquarters, 1872
thumb|Great Andamanese women and children, with an occasional man 1876
From the time of its development in 1858 under the direction of James Pattison Walker, and in response to the mutiny and rebellion of the previous year, the settlement was first and foremost a repository for political prisoners. The Cellular Jail at Port Blair, when completed in 1910, included 698 cells designed for solitary confinement; each cell measured with a single ventilation window above the floor.
The Indians imprisoned here referred to the island and its prison as Kala Pani ("black water"), named for kala pani, the Hindu proscription against traveling across the open sea. Incarceration on the Andamans thus threatened prisoners with the loss of their caste, and resultant social exclusion; a 1996 film set on the island took that term as its title, Kaalapani. The number of prisoners who died in this camp is estimated to be in the thousands. Many more died of harsh treatment and the strenuous living and working conditions in this camp.
The Viper Chain Gang Jail on Viper Island was reserved for extraordinarily troublesome prisoners and was also the site of hangings. In the 20th century, it became a convenient place to house prominent members of India's independence movement.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Japanese occupation
|
Japanese occupation
thumb|Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Island in 2004
thumb|Andaman Islands
The Andaman and Nicobar Islands were occupied by Japan during World War II. The islands were nominally put under the authority of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind (Provisional Government of Free India) headed by Subhas Chandra Bose, who visited the islands during the war, and renamed them as Shaheed (Martyr) & Swaraj (Self-rule). On 30 December 1943, during the Japanese occupation, Bose, who was allied with the Japanese, first raised the flag of Indian independence. General Loganathan, of the Indian National Army, was Governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which had been annexed to the Provisional Government. According to Werner Gruhl: "Before leaving the islands, the Japanese rounded up and executed 750 innocents."Gruhl, Werner (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931–1945 , Transaction Publishers. . p. 102.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Post-World War II
|
Post-World War II
At the close of World War II, the British government announced its intention to shut down the penal settlement. The government proposed to employ former inmates in an initiative to develop the island's fisheries, timber, and agricultural resources. In exchange, inmates would be granted return passage to the Indian mainland, or the right to settle on the islands. J H Williams, one of the Bombay Burma Company's senior officials, was dispatched to perform a timber survey of the islands using convict labor. He recorded his findings in 'The Spotted Deer' (published in 1957 by Rupert Hart-Davis).
The penal colony was eventually closed on 15 August 1947 when India gained independence. It has since served as a museum to the independence movement.
Most of the Andaman Islands became part of the Republic of India in 1950 and was declared as a union territory of the nation in 1956, while the Preparis Island and Coco Islands became part of the Yangon Region of Myanmar in 1948.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Late 20th Century – 21st century
|
Late 20th Century – 21st century
|
Andaman Islands
|
Outside visits
|
Outside visits
In April 1998, American photographer John S. Callahan organised the first surfing project in the Andamans, starting from Phuket in Thailand with the assistance of Southeast Asia Liveaboards (SEAL), a UK owned dive charter company. With a crew of international professional surfers, they crossed the Andaman Sea on the yacht Crescent and cleared formalities in Port Blair. The group proceeded to Little Andaman Island, where they spent ten days surfing several spots for the first time, including Jarawa Point near Hut Bay and the long right reef point at the southwest tip of the island, named Kumari Point. The resulting article in Surfer Magazine, "Quest for Fire" by journalist Sam George, put the Andaman Islands on the surfing map for the first time. Footage of the waves of the Andaman Islands also appeared in the film Thicker than Water, shot by documentary filmmaker Jack Johnson. Callahan went on to make several more surfing projects in the Andamans, including a trip to the Nicobar Islands in 1999.
In November 2018, John Allen Chau, an American missionary, traveled illegally with the help of local fishermen to the North Sentinel Island off the Andaman Islands chain group on several occasions, despite a travel ban to the island. He is reported to have been killed. Despite some relaxation introduced earlier in 2018 to the stringent visit permit system for the islands, North Sentinel Island was still highly protected from outside contact. Special permission to allow researchers and anthropologists to visit could be sought. Chau had no special clearance and knew that his visit was illegal.
Although a less restrictive system of approval to visit some of the islands now applies, with non-Indian nationals no longer required to obtain pre-approval with a Restricted Area Permit (RAP), foreign visitors must still show their passport at Immigration at Port Blair Airport and Seaport for verification. Citizens of Afghanistan, China and Pakistan, or other foreign nationals whose origin is any of these countries, still required to obtain a RAP to visit Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Similarly, citizens of Myanmar who wish to visit Mayabunder or Diglipur must also apply for a RAP. In these cases, the permits must be pre-approved prior to arrival in Port Blair.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Natural disasters
|
Natural disasters
On 26 December 2004, the coast of the Andaman Islands was devastated by a tsunami following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which is the longest recorded earthquake, lasting for between 500 and 600 seconds. Strong oral tradition in the area warned of the importance of moving inland after a quake and is credited with saving many lives. In the aftermath, more than 2,000 people were confirmed dead and more than 4,000 children were orphaned or had lost one parent. At least 40,000 residents were rendered homeless and were moved to relief camps. On 11 August 2009, a magnitude 7 earthquake struck near the Andaman Islands, causing a tsunami warning to go into effect. On 30 March 2010, a magnitude 6.9 earthquake struck near the Andaman Islands.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Geography and geology
|
Geography and geology
The Andaman Archipelago is an oceanic continuation of the Burmese Arakan Yoma range in the north and of the Indonesian Archipelago in the south. It has 325 islands which cover an area of , with the Andaman Sea to the east between the islands and the coast of Burma. North Andaman Island is south of Burma, although a few smaller Burmese islands are closer, including the three Coco Islands.
The Ten Degree Channel separates the Andamans from the Nicobar Islands to the south. The highest point is located in North Andaman Island (Saddle Peak at ).
The geology of the Andaman islands consists essentially of Late Jurassic to Early Eocene ophiolites and sedimentary rocks (argillaceous and algal limestones), deformed by numerous deep faults and thrusts with ultramafic igneous intrusions. There are at least 11 mud volcanoes on the islands.Chakrabarti, P.; Nag, A.; Dutta, S. B.; Dasgupta, S. and Gupta, N. (2006) S & T Input: Earthquake and Tsunami Effects... , page 43. Chapter 5 in S. M. Ramasamy et al. (eds.), Geomatics in Tsunami, New India Publishing. There are two volcanic islands, Narcondam Island and Barren Island, which have produced basalt and andesite. Barren Island is the only active volcano in the Indian sub-continent, with the latest eruption reported in December 2022, leading to the potential for geotourism.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Climate
|
Climate
The climate is typical of tropical islands of similar latitude. It is always warm, but with sea breezes. Rainfall is irregular, usually dry during the north-east monsoons, and very wet during the south-west monsoons.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Flora
|
Flora
thumb|Tropical forest, Shaheed Island
thumb|Mangrove trees on the beach, Havelock Island
The Middle Andamans harbour mostly moist deciduous forests. North Andamans is characterised by the wet evergreen type, with plenty of woody climbers.
The natural vegetation of the Andamans is tropical forest, with mangroves on the coast. The rainforests are similar in composition to those of the west coast of Burma. Most of the forests are evergreen, but there are areas of deciduous forest on North Andaman, Middle Andaman, Baratang and parts of South Andaman Island. The South Andaman forests have a profuse growth of epiphytic vegetation, mostly ferns and orchids.
The Andaman forests are largely unspoiled, despite logging and the demands of the fast-growing population driven by immigration from the Indian mainland. There are protected areas on Little Andaman, Narcondam, North Andaman and South Andaman, but these are mainly aimed at preserving the coast and the marine wildlife rather than the rainforests. Threats to wildlife come from introduced species including rats, dogs, cats and the elephants of Interview Island and North Andaman.
Scientists discovered a new species of green algae species in the Andaman archipelago, naming it Acetabularia jalakanyakae. "Jalakanyaka" is a Sanskrit word that means "mermaid".
|
Andaman Islands
|
Timber
|
Timber
thumb|upright=1|right|Stilt houses in an Andamanese timber operation
Andaman forests contain 200 or more timber producing species of trees, out of which about 30 varieties are considered to be commercial. Major commercial timber species are Gurjan (Dipterocarpus spp.) and Padauk (Pterocarpus dalbergioides). The following ornamental woods are noted for their pronounced grain formation:
Marble wood (Diospyros marmorata)
Padauk (Pterocarpus dalbergioides)
Silver grey (a special formation of wood in white utkarsh)
Chooi (Sageraea elliptica)
Kokko (Albizzia lebbeck)
Padauk wood is sturdier than teak and is widely used for furniture making.
There are burr wood and buttress root formations in Andaman Padauk. The largest piece of buttress known from Andaman was a dining table of . The largest piece of burr wood was made into a dining table for eight.
The Rudraksha (Elaeocarps sphaericus) and aromatic Dhoop-resin trees also are found here.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Fauna
|
Fauna
thumb|The coral reef at Havelock in Andaman
The Andaman Islands are home to a number of animals, many of them endemic. Andaman & Nicobar islands are home to 10% of all Indian fauna species. The islands are only 0.25% of the country's geographical area, but has 11,009 species, according to a publication by the Zoological Survey of India.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Mammals
|
Mammals
The island's endemic mammals include
Andaman spiny shrew (Crocidura hispida)
Andaman shrew (Crocidura andamanensis)
Jenkins's shrew (Crocidura jenkinsi)
Andaman horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus cognatus)
Andaman rat (Rattus stoicus)
The banded pig (Sus scrofa vittatus), also known as the Andaman wild boar and once thought to be an endemic subspecies, is protected by the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 (Sch I). The spotted deer (Axis axis), the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) and the sambar (Rusa unicolor) were all introduced to the Andaman islands, though the sambar did not survive.
Interview Island (the largest wildlife sanctuary in the territory) in Middle Andaman holds a population of feral elephants, which were brought in for forest work by a timber company and released when the company went bankrupt. This population has been subject to research studies.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Birds
|
Birds
Endemic or near endemic birds include
Spilornis elgini, a serpent-eagle
Rallina canningi, a crake (endemic; data-deficient per IUCN 2000)
Columba palumboides, a wood-pigeon
Macropygia rufipennis, a cuckoo dove
Centropus andamanensis, a subspecies of brown coucal (endemic)
Otus balli, a scops owl
Ninox affinis, a hawk-owl
Rhyticeros narcondami, the Narcondam hornbill
Dryocopus hodgei, a woodpecker
Dicrurus andamanensis, a drongo
Dendrocitta bayleyii, a treepie
Sturnus erythropygius, the white-headed starling
Collocalia affinis, the plume-toed swiftlet
Aerodramus fuciphagus, the edible-nest swiftlet
The islands' many caves, such as those at Chalis Ek are nesting grounds for the edible-nest swiftlet, whose nests are prized in China for bird's nest soup.Sankaran, R. (1998), The impact of nest collection on the Edible-nest Swiftlet in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands . Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore, India.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Reptiles and amphibians
|
Reptiles and amphibians
The islands also have a number of endemic reptiles, toads and frogs, such as the Andaman cobra (Naja sagittifera), South Andaman krait (Bungarus andamanensis) and Andaman water monitor (Varanus salvator andamanensis).
There is a sanctuary from Havelock Island for saltwater crocodiles. Over the past 25 years there have been 24 crocodile attacks with four fatalities, including the death of American tourist Lauren Failla. The government has been criticised for failing to inform tourists of the crocodile sanctuary and danger, while simultaneously promoting tourism. Crocodiles are not only found within the sanctuary, but throughout the island chain in varying densities. They are habitat restricted, so the population is stable but not large. Populations occur throughout available mangrove habitat on all major islands, including a few creeks on Havelock. The species uses the ocean as a means of travel between different rivers and estuaries, thus they are not as commonly observed in open ocean. It is best to avoid swimming near mangrove areas or the mouths of creeks; swimming in the open ocean should be safe, but it is best to have a spotter around.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Demographics
|
Demographics
thumb|The von Eickstedts in the Andamans 1926
thumb|An Andamanese family on the Great Andaman island in 2006
, the population of the Andaman was 343,125, having grown from 50,000 in 1960. The bulk of the population originates from immigrants who came to the island since the colonial times, mainly of Bengali, Hindustani, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam backgrounds.
thumb|left|Tribes of Andaman
A small minority of the population are the Andamanese — the aboriginal inhabitants (adivasi) of the islands. When they first came into sustained contact with outside groups in the 1850s, there were an estimated 7,000 Andamanese, divided into the Great Andamanese, Jarawa, Jangil (or Rutland Jarawa), Onge, and the Sentinelese. The Great Andamanese formed 10 tribes of 5,000 people total. As the numbers of settlers from the mainland increased (at first mostly prisoners and involuntary indentured labourers, later purposely recruited farmers), the Andamanese suffered a population decline due to the introduction of outside infectious diseases, land encroachment from settlers and conflict.
The Andaman Islands are home to the Sentinelese people, an uncontacted tribe.
Due to their isolated island location, the Andaman people have mostly avoided contact with the outside world. Their languages are a great reflection of this, with distinct linguistics that have strong morphological features – root words, prefix, suffixes – with very little relation to surrounding geographic regions.
Figures from the end of the 20th century estimate there remain only approximately 400–450 ethnic Andamanese still on the island, and as few as 50 speakers The Jangil are extinct. Most of the Great Andamanese tribes are extinct, and the survivors, now just 52, speak mostly Hindi. The Onge are reduced to less than 100 people. Only the Jarawa and Sentinelese still maintain a steadfast independence and refuse most attempts at contact; their numbers are uncertain but estimated to be in the low hundreds.
The indigenous languages are collectively referred to as the Andamanese languages, but they make up at least two independent families, and the dozen or so attested languages are either extinct or endangered.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Religion
|
Religion
Most of the tribal people in Andaman and Nicobar Islands believe in a religion that can be described as a form of monotheistic animism. The tribal people of these islands believe that Puluga is the only deity and is responsible for everything happening on Earth. The faith of the Andamanese teaches that Puluga resides on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands' Saddle Peak. People try to avoid any action that might displease Puluga. People belonging to this religion believe in the presence of souls, ghosts, and spirits. They put a lot of emphasis on dreams. They let dreams decide different courses of action in their lives.
Andamanese mythology held that human males emerged from split bamboo, whereas women were fashioned from clay.Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred Reginald. The Andaman Islanders: A study in social anthropology. 2nd printing (enlarged). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933 [1906]. p. 192 One version found by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown held that the first man died and went to heaven, a pleasurable world, but this blissful period ended due to breaking a food taboo, specifically eating the forbidden vegetables in the Puluga's garden.Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred Reginald. The Andaman Islanders: A study in social anthropology. 2nd printing (enlarged). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933 [1906]. p. 220 Thus catastrophe ensued, and eventually the people grew overpopulated and didn't follow Puluga's laws. Hence, there was a Great Flood that left four survivors, who lost their fire.Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred Reginald. The Andaman Islanders: A study in social anthropology. 2nd printing (enlarged). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933 [1906]. p. 216Witzel, Michael E.J. (2012). The Origin of The World's Mythologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 309-312
Other religions practiced in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are, in order of size, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and Baháʼí Faith.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Government
|
Government
thumb|The capital city of the Andaman Islands, Port Blair
Port Blair is the chief community on the islands, and the administrative centre of the Union Territory. The Andaman Islands form a single administrative district within the Union Territory, the Andaman district (the Nicobar Islands were separated and established as the new Nicobar district in 1974).
|
Andaman Islands
|
Transportation
|
Transportation
The only commercial airport is Veer Savarkar International Airport in Port Blair. The airport is under the control of the Indian Navy. Prior to 2016 only daylight operations were allowed; since 2016 night flights have also operated. A small airstrip, about long, is located near the eastern shore of North Andaman near Diglipur.
There are also ships from Chennai, Visakhapatnam and Kolkata.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Cultural references
|
Cultural references
|
Andaman Islands
|
Literature
|
Literature
The islands are prominently featured in Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes 1890 mystery The Sign of the Four. The magistrate in Lady Gregory's play Spreading the News had formerly served in the islands.
M. M. Kaye's 1985 novel Death in the Andamans and Marianne Wiggins' 1989 novel John Dollar are set in the islands. The latter begins with an expedition from Burma to celebrate King George's birthday, but turns into a grim survival story after an earthquake and tsunami.
A principal character in the novel Six Suspects by Vikas Swarup is from the Andaman Islands. The main protagonist of William Boyd's 2018 novel Love is Blind, spends time in the Andaman Islands at the turn of the 20th century. The Andaman Islands in the period before, during and just after the Second World War are the setting for Uzma Aslan Khan's The Miraculous True History of Nomi Ali.
|
Andaman Islands
|
Film and television
|
Film and television
Priyadarshan's 1996 film Kaalapani (Malayalam; Sirai Chaalai in Tamil) depicts the Indian freedom struggle and the lives of prisoners in the Cellular Jail in Port Blair.
In 2023, Andaman islands were featured in a Netflix series named Kaala Paani based on a fictional disease outbreak in 2027.
|
Andaman Islands
|
See also
|
See also
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
List of endemic birds of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
List of trees of the Andaman Islands
Lists of islands
|
Andaman Islands
|
References
|
References
Notes
Sources
History & Culture. The Andaman Islands with destination quide
|
Andaman Islands
|
External links
|
External links
Official Andaman and Nicobar Tourism Website
Andaman
Category:Archipelagoes of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Category:Archipelagoes of India
Category:Archipelagoes of the Indian Ocean
Category:Archipelagoes of Southeast Asia
Category:Maritime Southeast Asia
Category:Volcanoes of India
Category:Pleistocene volcanoes
Category:Pleistocene Asia
Category:Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples
|
Andaman Islands
|
Table of Content
|
short description, History, Etymology, Early inhabitants, Chola empire, British colonial era, Japanese occupation, Post-World War II, Late 20th Century – 21st century, Outside visits, Natural disasters, Geography and geology, Climate, Flora, Timber, Fauna, Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and amphibians, Demographics, Religion, Government, Transportation, Cultural references, Literature, Film and television, See also, References, External links
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
short description
|
thumb|Supplementum Apollonii redivivi, 1612
Alexander Anderson ( in Aberdeen – in Paris) was a Scottish mathematician.
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
Life
|
Life
He was born in Aberdeen, possibly in 1582, according to a print which suggests he was aged 35 in 1617. It is unknown where he was educated, but it is likely that he initially studied writing and philosophy (the "belles lettres") in his home city of Aberdeen.
He then went to the continent, and was a professor of mathematics in Paris by the start of the seventeenth century. There he published or edited, between the years 1612 and 1619, various geometric and algebraic tracts. He described himself as having "more wisdom than riches" in the dedication of Vindiciae Archimedis (1616).
He was first cousin of David Anderson of Finshaugh, a celebrated mathematician, and David Anderson's daughter was the mother of mathematician James Gregory.
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
Work
|
Work
He was selected by the executors of François Viète to revise and edit Viète's manuscript works. Viète died in 1603, and it is unclear if Anderson knew him, but his eminence was sufficient to attract the attention of the dead man's executors. Anderson corrected and expanded upon Viète's manuscripts, which extended known geometry to the new algebra, which used general symbols to represent quantities.
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
Publications
|
Publications
The known works of Anderson amount to six thin quarto volumes, and as the last of them was published in 1619, it is probable that the author died soon after that year, but the precise date is unknown. He wrote other works that have since been lost. From his last work it appears he wrote another piece, "A Treatise on the Mensuration of Solids," and copies of two other works, Ex. Math. and Stereometria Triangulorum Sphæricorum, were in the possession of Sir Alexander Hume until the after the middle of the seventeenth century.
1612: Supplementum Apollonii Redivivi
1615: Ad Angularum Sectionem Analytica Theoremata F. Vieta
1615: Pro Zetetico Apolloniani
1615: Francisci Vietae Fontenaeensis
1616: Vindiciae Archimedis
1619: Alexandri Andersoni Exercitationum Mathematicarum Decas Prima
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
See also
|
See also
Marin Getaldić
Denis Henrion
Frans van Schooten
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
References
|
References
Attribution:
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
Further reading
|
Further reading
Category:1580s births
Category:1620 deaths
Category:People from Aberdeen
Category:Algebraists
Category:Geometers
Category:Scottish scholars and academics
Category:Academic staff of the University of Paris
Category:17th-century Scottish mathematicians
|
Alexander Anderson (mathematician)
|
Table of Content
|
short description, Life, Work, Publications, See also, References, Further reading
|
Andocides
|
Short description
|
Andocides (;"Andocides". The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed., Columbia University Press, 2012. , Andokides; ) was a logographer (speech writer) in Ancient Greece. He was one of the ten Attic orators included in the "Alexandrian Canon" compiled by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samothrace in the third century BC.
|
Andocides
|
Life
|
Life
Andocides was the son of Leogoras, and was born in Athens around 440 BC.Brill's New Pauly v.Andocides He belonged to the ancient Eupatrid family of the Kerykes, who traced their lineage up to Odysseus and the god Hermes.Pseudo-Plutarch, Lives of the Ten OratorsPlutarch, Alcibiades 21Andocides, De Mysteriis § 141Andocides, De Reditu § 26
During his youth, Andocides seems to have been employed on various occasions as ambassador to Thessaly, Macedonia, Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy, and Sicily.Andocides, Contra Alcibiadem § 41 Although he was frequently attacked for his political opinions,Andocides, Contra Alcibiadem § 8 he maintained his ground until, in 415 BC, he became involved in the charge brought against Alcibiades for having profaned the mysteries and mutilated the Herms on the eve of the departure of the Athenian expedition against Sicily. It appeared particularly likely that Andocides was an accomplice in the latter of these crimes, which was believed to be a preliminary step towards overthrowing the democratic constitution, since the Herm standing close to his house in the phyle Aegeis was among the very few which had not been injured.Cornelius Nepos, Alcibiades 3Jan Otto Sluiter, lectiones Andocideae c. 3.
Andocides was accordingly seized and thrown into prison, but after some time recovered his freedom by a promise that he would become an informer and reveal the names of the real perpetrators of the crime; and on the suggestion of one Charmides or Timaeus,Andocides, De Mysteriis § 48 he mentioned four, all of whom were put to death. He is also said to have denounced his own father on the charge of profaning the mysteries, but to have rescued him again in the hour of danger - a charge he strenuously denied.Andocides, De Mysteriis But as Andocides was unable to clear himself from the charge, he was deprived of his rights as a citizen, and left Athens.Andocides, De Reditu § 25
Andocides traveled about in various parts of Greece, and was chiefly engaged in commercial enterprise and in forming connections with powerful people.Andocides, De Mysteriis § 137 The means he employed to gain the friendship of powerful men were sometimes of the most disreputable kind; among which a service he rendered to a prince in Cyprus is mentioned in particular.Photios I of Constantinople, Bibliotheca
In 411 BC, Andocides returned to Athens on the establishment of the oligarchic government of the Four Hundred, hoping that a certain service he had rendered the Athenian ships at Samos would secure him a welcome reception.Andocides, De Reditu §§ 11,12 But no sooner were the oligarchs informed of the return of Andocides, than their leader Peisander had him seized, and accused him of having supported the party opposed to them at Samos. During his trial, Andocides, who perceived the exasperation prevailing against him, leaped to the altar which stood in the court, and there assumed the attitude of a supplicant. This saved his life, but he was imprisoned. Soon afterwards, however, he was set free, or escaped from prison.Andocides, De Reditu § 15Lysias, Against Andocides § 29
Andocides then went to Cyprus, where for a time he enjoyed the friendship of Evagoras; but, by some circumstance or other, he exasperated his friend, and was consigned to prison. Here again he escaped, and after the restoration of democracy in Athens and the abolition of the Four Hundred, he ventured once more to return to Athens; but as he was still suffering under a sentence of civil disenfranchisement, he endeavored by means of bribes to persuade the prytaneis to allow him to attend the assembly of the people. The latter, however, expelled him from the city. It was on this occasion, in 411 BC, that Andocides delivered the speech still extant "On his return", on which he petitioned for permission to reside at Athens, but in vain. In his third exile, Andocides went to reside in Elis, and during the time of his absence from his native city, his house there was occupied by Cleophon, the leading demagogue.Andocides, De Mysteriis § 146
Andocides remained in exile until after the overthrow of the tyranny of the Thirty by Thrasybulus, when the general amnesty then proclaimed made him hope that its benefit would be extended to him also. He himself says that he returned to Athens from Cyprus,Andocides, De Mysteriis § 132 where he claimed to have great influence and considerable property.Andocides, De Mysteriis § 4 Because of the general amnesty, he was allowed to remain at Athens, enjoyed peace for the next three years, and soon recovered an influential position. According to Lysias, it was scarcely ten days after his return that he brought an accusation against Archippus or Aristippus, which, however, he dropped on receiving a sum of money. During this period Andocides became a member of the boule, in which he appears to have possessed a great influence, as well as in the popular assembly. He was gymnasiarch at the Hephaestaea, was sent as architheorus to the Isthmian Games and Olympic Games, and was even entrusted with the office of keeper of the sacred treasury.
But in 400 BC, Callias, supported by Cephisius, Agyrrhius, Meletus, and Epichares, urged the necessity of preventing Andocides from attending the assembly, as he had never been formally freed from the civil disenfranchisement. Callias II also charged him with violating the laws respecting the temple at Eleusis.Andocides, De Mysteriis § 110 The orator pleaded his case in the oration still extant "on the Mysteries" (περὶ τῶν μυστηρίων), in which he argued that he had not been involved in the profanation of the mysteries or the mutilation of the herms, that he had not violated the laws of the temple at Eleusis, that anyway he had received his citizenship back as a result of the amnesty, and that Callias was really motivated by a private dispute with Andocides over inheritance. He was acquitted. After this, he again enjoyed peace until 394 BC, when he was sent as ambassador to Sparta regarding the peace to be concluded in consequence of Conon's victory off Cnidus. On his return, he was accused of illegal conduct during his embassy. The speech "On the peace with the Lacedaemonians" (περὶ τῆς πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους εἰρήνης), which is still extant, refers to this affair. It was delivered in 393 BC (though some scholars place it in 391 BC). Andocides was found guilty, and sent into exile for the fourth time. He never returned afterwards, and seems to have died soon after this blow.
Andocides appears to have fathered no children, since he is described at the age of 70 as being childless,Andocides, De Mysteriis §§ 146,148 although the scholiast on Aristophanes mentions Antiphon as a son of Andocides. The large fortune which he had inherited from his father, or acquired in his commercial undertakings, was greatly diminished in the latter years of his life.Andocides, De Mysteriis § 144Lysias, Against Andocides § 31
|
Andocides
|
Oratory
|
Oratory
As an orator, Andocides does not appear to have been held in very high esteem by the ancients, as he is seldom mentioned, though Valerius Theon is said to have written a commentary on his orations.Suda, s.v. Θέων We do not hear of his having been trained in any of the sophistical schools of the time, and he had probably developed his talents in the practical school of the popular assembly. Hence his orations have no mannerism in them, and are really, as Plutarch says, simple and free from all rhetorical pomp and ornament.Comp. Dionys. Hal. de Lys. 2, de Thucyd. Jud. 51
Sometimes, however, his style is diffuse, and becomes tedious and obscure. The best among his orations is that "on the Mysteries"; but, for the history of the time, all are of the highest importance.
Besides the three orations already mentioned, which are undoubtedly genuine, there is a fourth against Alcibiades (κατὰ Ἀλκιβιάδου), said to have been delivered by Andocides during the ostracism of 415 BC; but it is probably spurious, though it appears to contain genuine historical matter. Some scholars ascribed it to Phaeax, who took part in the ostracism, according to Plutarch. But it is more likely that it is a rhetorical exercise from the early fourth century BC, since formal speeches were not delivered during ostracisms and the accusation or defence of Alcibiades was a standing rhetorical theme.Gribble. 1999. Alcibiades and Athens ch.2 app.2 Besides these four orations we possess only a few fragments and some very vague allusions to other orations.Jan Otto Sluiter, lectiones Andocideae p. 239, &c.
|
Andocides
|
List of extant speeches
|
List of extant speeches
|
Andocides
|
[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+1+1 On the Mysteries] ({{lang
|
On the Mysteries ( "De Mysteriis").
Andocides made the speech "On the Mysteries" as a defense against the accusations made against him by Athens for attending the Eleusinian Mysteries without permission, as he was prohibited under Isotimides' order. The case's prosecutors had insisted that Andocides be put to death. His attendance at the Eleusinian Mysteries in Eleusis around 400 BCE was the main accusation made against him. Additionally, he was charged with unlawfully placing an olive branch on the altar of the Eleusinium at Athens during the Mysteries.Gagarin & MacDowell, Antiphon and Andocides, University of Texas Press, 1998. p.99
The speech can be split into two parts. In the first, Andocides asserted that the decree of Isotimides had no power to prevent him from attending the Eleusinian Mysteries because he was innocent of impiety and had not confessed to it. He would go on to declare that because of alterations made to the law in 403 BCE, the decree altogether was no longer legitimate.
In the second part of the speech, he would move on to claim that his prosecutors, namely Cephisius, Meletus, Epichares and Agyrrhius, were not legitimate by making allegations against them.Gagarin & MacDowell, Antiphon and Andocides, University of Texas Press, 1998. p.100 Andocides asserted that Cephisius, Meletus, and Epichares had also committed crimes prior to the legal revisions, exposing their hypocrisy in bringing charges against him since they would also be at risk of being prosecuted. Andocides asserts that Agyrrhius is ineligible to prosecute them for their private conflicts.
This speech was successful in persuading the jury, as Andocides was sentenced to be innocent. Gagarin and MacDowell commented on the oration, saying that while the speech itself is rather rough on its wording, it is a genuine speech of Andocides fighting for his life and was “sufficiently clear and logical”.Gagarin & MacDowell, Antiphon and Andocides, University of Texas Press, 1998. p.101
|
Andocides
|
[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+2+1 On His Return] ({{lang
|
On His Return ( "De Reditu").
“On His Return” was a speech made by Andocides in an attempt to be brought back to Athen after being exiled from the city-state in 415 BCE for impious acts. Despite commonly being considered as the second work in Andocides’ orations, “On His Return” precedes "On the Mysteries” in date. Andocides tries to return to the city-state in 411 BCE. To ensure his return would be welcomed, he had obtained some Macedonian timber and sold them to the Athenian fleet stationed at Samos.Gagarin & MacDowell, Antiphon and Andocides, University of Texas Press, 1998. p.141 However, in an interesting turn of events, Andocides’ goodwill would turn against him. The Four Hundred,Kagan, Donald. The Fall of the Athenian Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013., p.148 an oligarchy, had just come into reign from a coup in 411 BCE, they were faced with objections from the sailors at Samos, who were mostly democratic. As a result, Andocides was imprisoned by Perisander, the leader of the Four Hundred.
“On His Return” was made after the downfall of the Four Hundred, with Andocides appealing to seek forgiveness and be reaccepted into Athenian society. Experts have distinctively noted that this oration has a tone different from “On The Mysteries”, in which Andocides was more prone to admit his faults and put himself at a lower light. Saying that “I stood disgraced in the eyes of the gods”Andocides, “On His Return”, section 15 and addressing his crime as “such a piece of madness”.Andocides, “On His Return”, section 7 However, his efforts were to no avail,Gagarin & MacDowell, Antiphon and Andocides, University of Texas Press, 1998. p.148 as he only was readmitted into the Athenian society upon “On The Mysteries”.
|
Andocides
|
[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+3+1 On the Peace with Sparta] ({{lang
|
On the Peace with Sparta ( "De Pace").
“On the Peace with Sparta” was given for advocating the acceptance of the terms of peace offered by Sparta during the Corinthian War between Sparta and a coalition consisting of the city-states Athens, Boeotia, Corinth and Argos. Andocides was selected as one of the four delegates that represented Athens in the negotiation of peace between them and Sparta. The delegation were given the authority to conclude the treaty in Sparta, Considering that Andocides was just reaccepted into Athens by “On The Mysteries” in 403 BCE. The delegation shows that Andocides had gained considerable popularity among the Athenians within eight years upon his return. Still, with the authority given, the team of delegates decided to bring the terms back to Athens for approval. The speech gives the historical context behind the offer of truce, and gives a list of arguments for the acceptance of Sparta's terms for peace. The terms that were given were closely related to the Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War, after which rather unfair terms had been imposed on the Athenians by Sparta for peace. They include:
Athens would destroy Athenian town walls
Athens would give up the Delian League
Athens would shrink the Athenian navy except a mere twelve ships
Athens would Install the Thirty, an oppressive oligarchic regime
The peace terms offered by Sparta were mostly responses to the terms listed above, they include:Gagarin & MacDowell, Antiphon and Andocides, University of Texas Press, 1998. p.149
Athens would be allowed to rebuild their town walls
Athens would be able to expand their navy and control three islands at the north of the Aegean sea
Greeks cities would be independent, except those in Asia, which would be under Persian control.
In “On the Peace with Sparta”, Andocides argues that such terms were satisfactory for the Athenian side, claiming that “it is better to make peace on fair terms than to continue fighting”.Andocides, On the Peace, Section 1 However, the speech would fail to convince the Athenians, partly because of Andocides’ aristocratic origins and oligarchic political stance.Gagarin & MacDowell., p.95 Andocides would flee from Athens and be exiled again for allegedly accepting bribes and making false reports. There is no information on his life after the exile.
Still, Gagarin and MacDowell commented that Andocides speaks like an professional orator in this speech, this seems to imply that he has received extensive training and gained considerable experience on public speaking.
|
Andocides
|
[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+4+1 Against Alcibiades] ({{lang
|
Against Alcibiades ( "Contra Alcibiadem").
This oration criticises Alcibiades for an ostracism which he and the speaker were in danger of falling victim to.Gribble, David. “Rhetoric and History in [Andocides] 4, Against Alcibiades.” Classical Quarterly 47, no. 2 (1997): p. 367. An ostracism was a method of banishing a citizen for a decade.Gagarin & MacDowell., p.159 The oration claims that Alcibiades bought a female slave from one of the captives after the fall of Melos.Andocides, Against Alcibiades, section 22
The speaker bashes Alcibiades for his questionable morals and acts, as shown in he recounting Alcibiades’ actions during the Olympic games in 416 BCE,Gribble, p.367 “ Alcibiades will not endure it (defeat in Olympia) even at the hands of his fellow-citizensAndocides, Against Alcibiades, section 28” and that “he does not treat his own fellow Athenians as his equals, but robs them, strikes them, throws them into prison, and extorts money from themAndocides, Against Alcibiades, section 27”.
However, this speech fails to meet its goal of ostracizing Alcibiades, as followers of him and Nicas rallied support for the two and instead urged people to vote against Hyperbolus, a less politically significant figure. This strategy is successful as Hyperbolus was banished instead of the two. This would mark the fall of the ostracism system, as it was controversial among the public that it could be manipulated in such a way, the system would be abandoned soon after this case.
Although attributed to Andocides, it has been widely agreed upon that Andocides was not the one who made this speech. For the reason that the author of the speech lacks the correct understanding of the procedures of an ostracism and Athenian politics in general,Gagarin & MacDowell., p.159-160 the style of the speech was also significantly different than that of Andocides.Gagarin & MacDowell., p.160 One popular theory of the authorship of the speech was that it was written by Phaeax, another orator in Athens at the time.Gribble, p.371
|
Andocides
|
Notes
|
Notes
Attribution
|
Andocides
|
External links
|
External links
Speeches at the Perseus Project
Category:Attic orators
Category:5th-century BC Athenians
Category:4th-century BC Athenians
Category:Ancient Greeks accused of sacrilege
Category:Athenians of the Peloponnesian War
Category:440s BC births
Category:370s BC deaths
|
Andocides
|
Table of Content
|
Short description, Life, Oratory, List of extant speeches, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+1+1 On the Mysteries] ({{lang, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+2+1 On His Return] ({{lang, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+3+1 On the Peace with Sparta] ({{lang, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Andoc.+4+1 Against Alcibiades] ({{lang, Notes, External links
|
Andrea Andreani
|
Short description
|
thumb|Triumphus Caesari, by Andreani, after a painting by Mantegna
Andrea Andreani (1540–1623) was an Italian engraver on wood, who was among the first printmakers in Italy to use chiaroscuro, which required multiple colours.
Andreani was born and generally active in Mantua about 1540 (Brulliot says 1560) and died at Rome in 1623. His engravings are scarce and valuable, and are chiefly copies of Mantegna, Albrecht Dürer, Parmigianino and Titian. The most remarkable of his works are Mercury and Ignorance, the Deluge, Pharaoh's Host Drowned in the Red Sea (after Titian), the Triumph of Caesar (after Mantegna), and Christ retiring from the judgment-seat of Pilate after a relief by Giambologna. He was active 1584–1610 in Florence.ULAN
Andreani's work is held in several museums worldwide, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, the Ackland Art Museum, the Clark Art Institute, the Harvard Art Museums, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Albright–Knox Art Gallery, the National Gallery of Canada, the Davis Museum at Wellesley College, the Cooper Hewitt, the University of Michigan Museum of Art, the Bowdoin College Museum of Art, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Princeton University Art Museum, and the British Museum.
|
Andrea Andreani
|
References
|
References
|
Andrea Andreani
|
Sources
|
Sources
"Andrea Andreani" in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th Edition, Vol. II, p. 20.
Getty ULAN entry.
|
Andrea Andreani
|
Further reading
|
Further reading
artnet
Category:1540 births
Category:1623 deaths
Category:Artists from Mantua
Category:16th-century Italian artists
Category:17th-century Italian artists
Category:Italian engravers
Category:16th-century engravers
Category:17th-century engravers
Category:People from the Duchy of Mantua
|
Andrea Andreani
|
Table of Content
|
Short description, References, Sources, Further reading
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
short description
|
Andrew II (, , , ; 117721 September 1235), also known as Andrew of Jerusalem, was King of Hungary and Croatia between 1205 and 1235. He ruled the Principality of Halych from 1188 until 1189/1190, and again between 1208/1209 and 1210. He was the younger son of Béla III of Hungary, who entrusted him with the administration of the newly conquered Principality of Halych in 1188. Andrew's rule was unpopular, and the boyars (or noblemen) expelled him. Béla III willed property and money to Andrew, obliging him to lead a crusade to the Holy Land. Instead, Andrew forced his elder brother, King Emeric of Hungary, to cede Croatia and Dalmatia as an appanage to him in 1197. The following year, Andrew occupied Hum.
Although Andrew did not stop conspiring against Emeric, the dying king made Andrew guardian of his son, Ladislaus III, in 1204. After the premature death of Ladislaus, Andrew ascended the throne in 1205. According to historian László Kontler, "[i]t was amidst the socio-political turmoil during [Andrew's] reign that the relations, arrangements, institutional framework and social categories that arose under Stephen I, started to disintegrate in the higher echelons of society" in Hungary. Andrew introduced a new grants policy, the so-called "new institutions", giving away money and royal estates to his partisans despite the loss of royal revenues. He was the first Hungarian monarch to adopt the title of "King of Halych and Lodomeria". He waged at least a dozen wars to seize the two Rus' principalities, but was repelled by the local boyars and neighboring princes. He participated in the Fifth Crusade to the Holy Land in 1217–1218, but the crusade was a failure.
When the servientes regis, or "royal servants", rose up, Andrew was forced to issue the Golden Bull of 1222, confirming their privileges. This led to the rise of the nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. His Diploma Andreanum of 1224 listed the liberties of the Transylvanian Saxon community. The employment of Jews and Muslims to administer the royal revenues led him into conflict with the Holy See and the Hungarian prelates. Andrew pledged to respect the privileges of the clergymen and to dismiss his non-Christian officials in 1233, but he never fulfilled the latter promise.
Andrew had several children by three marriages. He had five children with his first wife, Gertrude of Merania, who was murdered in 1213 because her blatant favoritism towards her German kinsmen and courtiers stirred up discontent among the native lords. The Holy See canonized their daughter Elizabeth during Andrew's lifetime. His second marriage to Yolanda de Courtenay produced a daughter, Yolanda, while his third wife, Beatrice d'Este, bore a posthumous son, Stephen. After Andrew's death, his sons from his first marriage, Béla IV of Hungary and Coloman of Halych, accused the widowed Beatrice of adultery and never considered her son to be Andrew's legitimate son.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Early life
|
Early life
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Childhood and youth ({{circa}} 1177–1197)
|
Childhood and youth ( 1177–1197)
Andrew was the second son of King Béla III and Béla's first wife, Agnes of Antioch. The year of Andrew's birth is not known, but modern historians agree that he was born around 1177, considering that Margaret, who was born in 1175 or 1176, was his elder sister, which, however, is far from certain. Andrew was first mentioned in connection to his father's invasion of the Principality of Halych in 1188. That year, Béla III invaded Halych upon the request of its former prince, Vladimir II Yaroslavich, who had been expelled by his subjects. Béla forced the new prince, Roman Mstislavich, to flee. After conquering Halych, he granted it to Andrew. Béla also captured Vladimir Yaroslavich and imprisoned him in Hungary.
After Béla's withdrawal from Halych, Roman Mstislavich returned with the assistance of Rurik Rostislavich, Prince of Belgorod Kievsky. They tried to expel Andrew and his Hungarian retinue, but the Hungarians routed the united forces of Mstislavich and Rostislavich. A group of local boyars offered the throne to Rostislav Ivanovich, a distant cousin of the imprisoned Vladimir Yaroslavich. Béla III sent reinforcements to Halych, enabling Andrew's troops to repel the attacks. Andrew's nominal reign remained unpopular in Halych, because the Hungarian soldiers insulted local women and did not respect Orthodox churches. Consequently, the local boyars allied themselves with their former prince, Vladimir Yaroslavich, who had escaped from captivity and returned to Halych. Duke Casimir II of Poland also supported Vladimir, and they expelled Andrew and his retinue from the principality in August 1189 or 1190. Andrew returned to Hungary after his defeat.
King Béla did not grant Andrew a separate duchy, but only gave his son some fortresses, estates and money. According to historian Attila Zsoldos, these landholdings laid in Slavonia. On his deathbed, Béla, who had pledged to lead a crusade to the Holy Land, ordered Andrew to fulfill his vow. Andrew's father died on 23 April 1196, and Andrew's older brother, Emeric, succeeded him.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia (1197–1204)
|
Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia (1197–1204)
Andrew used the funds that he inherited from his father to recruit supporters among the Hungarian lords. It is plausible he demanded from his brother to install him as Duke of Slavonia, which became increasingly the title of heir to the throne by the second half of the 12th century. Andrew also formed an alliance with Duke Leopold VI of Austria, and they plotted against Emeric. Their united troops routed the royal army at Mački, Slavonia, in December 1197. Under duress, King Emeric gave Croatia and Dalmatia to Andrew as an appanage, as most historians believe. In contrast, historian György Szabados claims that Emeric never acknowledged Andrew's dominion in Croatia and Dalmatia and that Andrew used the title of duke without his brother's approval. In practice, Andrew administered Croatia and Dalmatia as an independent monarch. He minted coins (Croatian frizatik), granted land and confirmed privileges. In accordance with the agreement, Varaždin and Bodrog counties also belonged to his suzerainty. He cooperated with the Frankopans, Babonići, and other local lords. Some of the prominent barons also supported his aspirations, including their uncle comes Andrew and Macarius Monoszló. The Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre settled in the province during his rule. Taking advantage of Miroslav of Hum's death, Andrew invaded Hum and occupied at least the land between the Cetina and Neretva rivers sometime before May 1198. He styled himself, "By the grace of God, Duke of Zadar and of all Dalmatia, Croatia and Hum" in his charters.
Pope Innocent III urged Andrew to lead a crusade to the Holy Land, but Andrew hatched a new conspiracy against Emeric with the help of John, Abbot of Pannonhalma, Boleslaus, Bishop of Vác, and many other prelates and lords. For instance, incumbent Palatine Mog also betrayed Emeric and swore allegiance to the Duke. The Pope threatened Andrew with excommunication if he failed to fulfill his father's vow, but Andrew did not yield. The conspiracy was uncovered on 10 March 1199, when King Emeric seized letters written by Andrew's partisans to Bishop Boleslaus. That summer, royal troops routed Andrew's army in the valley of Rád near Lake Balaton, and Andrew fled to Austria. During Andrew's exile, Emeric appointed his own partisans to administer Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia. A papal legate mediated a reconciliation between Andrew and Emeric, who allowed Andrew to return to Croatia and Dalmatia in 1200. Andrew married Gertrude of Merania sometime between 1200 and 1203; her father, Berthold, Duke of Merania, owned extensive domains in the Holy Roman Empire along the borders of Andrew's duchy, in what is now Slovenia.
thumb |right |190px |alt= The "Árpád stripes": four silver and four red stripes |The "Árpád stripes" (four Argent (silver) and four Gules (red) stripes) on Andrew's personal coat-of-arms
When Emeric's son, Ladislaus, was born around 1200, Andrew's hopes to succeed his brother as king were shattered. Pope Innocent confirmed the child's position as heir to the crown, declaring that Andrew's future sons would only inherit Andrew's duchy. Andrew planned a new rebellion against his brother, but King Emeric captured him without resistance near Varaždin in October 1203. In contrast, historian Attila Zsoldos considers it was the king who turned against his brother's province with an army initially convened for a crusade.
Andrew was first imprisoned in the fort of Gornji Kneginec, then in Esztergom. Alexander of the Hont-Pázmány clan freed him in early 1204. It is uncertain whether Andrew was freed by his partisans or his release took place with Emeric's consent. Having fallen ill, King Emeric had his son, Ladislaus, crowned king on 26 August. As Pope Innocent already ordered Archbishop Ugrin Csák to perform the coronation in April, it is plausible that the king decided on Andrew's release, therefore, the coronation was not vitally urgent. Andrew reconciled with his dying brother, who entrusted him with "the guardianship of his son and the administration of the entire kingdom until the ward should reach the age of majority",Archdeacon Thomas of Split: History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (ch. 23.), p. 143. according to the nearly contemporaneous Thomas the Archdeacon.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Nephew's guardian (1204–1205)
|
Nephew's guardian (1204–1205)
King Emeric died on 30 November 1204. Andrew governed the kingdom as Ladislaus's regent, but subsequently he counted his regnal years from the time of his brother's death, showing that he already regarded himself as the lawful monarch during Ladislaus III's reign. Pope Innocent told Andrew that he should remain loyal to Ladislaus, also instructing him to fulfill his vow to lead a crusade, to secure the incomes of Emeric's widow and Ladislaus III's mother, Constance of Aragon, and to keep royal property intact. The pope's letters suggest that serious tensions burdened the relationship between Andrew and Constance after Emeric's death.
Instead, Andrew seized the money that Emeric had deposited for Ladislaus in Pilis Abbey. He also confiscated a significant portion of private wealth from Constance, who deposited it in the Stephanites' convent in Esztergom prior to that, in addition to the denial of her dower. Queen Constance fled from Hungary, taking her son and the Holy Crown to Austria. According to the Annals of Admont, "some bishops and nobles" escorted them, breaking through the blockade that Andrew erected along the Austrian border. Andrew prepared for a war against Leopold VI of Austria, but Ladislaus suddenly died in Vienna on 7 May 1205. Andrew sent Bishop Peter of Győr to Austria, who successfully recovered the Holy Crown.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Reign
|
Reign
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
"New institutions" and campaigns in Halych (1205–1217)
|
"New institutions" and campaigns in Halych (1205–1217)
thumb|right|alt=A crowned man holding a flag in his left hand|Andrew II depicted in Illuminated Chronicle
alt=Chronica Hungarorum, Thuróczy chronicle, King Andrew II of Hungary, throne, crown, orb, scepter, medieval, Hungarian chronicle, book, illustration, history|thumb|Andrew II depicted in Chronica Hungarorum
John, Archbishop of Kalocsa, crowned Andrew king in Székesfehérvár on 29 May 1205. Andrew introduced a new policy for royal grants, which he called "new institutions" in one of his charters. He distributed large portions of the royal domainroyal castles and all estates attached to themas inheritable grants to his supporters, declaring that "the best measure of a royal grant is its being immeasurable." His "new institutions" altered the relations between the monarchs and the Hungarian lords. During the previous two centuries, a lord's status primarily depended on the income he received for his services to the monarch; after the introduction of the "new institutions", their inheritable estates yielded sufficient revenues. This policy also diminished the funds upon which the authority of the ispáns, or heads, of the countieswho were appointed by the monarchshad been based.
During his reign, Andrew was intensely interested in the internal affairs of his former principality of Halych. He launched his first campaign to recapture Halych in 1205 or 1206. Upon the boyars' request, he intervened against Vsevolod Svyatoslavich, Prince of Chernigov, and his allies on behalf of Daniel Romanovich, the child-prince of Halych, and Lodomeria. Svyatoslavich and his allies were forced to withdraw. Andrew adopted the title of "King of Galicia and Lodomeria", demonstrating his claim to suzerainty in the two principalities.
After Andrew returned to Hungary, Vsevolod Svyatoslavich's distant cousin, Vladimir Igorevich, seized both Halych and Lodomeria, expelling Daniel Romanovich and his mother. They fled to Leszek I of Poland, who suggested that they visit Andrew. However, Vladimir Igorevich "sent many gifts" to both Andrew and Leszek, dissuading "them from attacking him"The Hypatian Codex II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle (year 1207), p. 19. on behalf of Romanovich, according to the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. Vladimir Igorevich's rebellious brother, Roman Igorevich, soon came to Hungary, seeking Andrew's assistance. Roman returned to Halych and expelled Vladimir Igorevich with the help of Hungarian auxiliary troops.
Andrew confirmed the liberties of two Dalmatian townsSplit and Omišand issued a new charter listing the privileges of the archbishops of Split in 1207. Taking advantage of a conflict between Roman Igorevich and his boyars, Andrew sent troops to Halych under the command of Benedict, son of Korlát. Benedict captured Roman Igorevich and occupied the principality in 1208 or 1209. Instead of appointing a new prince, Andrew made Benedict governor of Halych. Benedict "tortured boyars and was addicted to lechery",The Hypatian Codex II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle (year 1210), p. 20. according to the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. The boyars offered the throne to Mstislav Mstislavich, Prince of Novgorod, if he could overthrow Benedict. Mstislav Mstislavich invaded Halych, but he could not defeat Benedict.
thumb|left|upright|alt=A queen reading a book and a bearded king holding a sceptre|Gertrude of Merania and Andrew depicted in the 13th-century from the Landgraviate of Thuringia
Queen Gertrude's two brothers, Ekbert of Bamberg, Bishop of Bamberg, and Henry II, Margrave of Istria, fled to Hungary in 1208 after they were accused of participating in the murder of Philip, King of the Germans. Andrew granted large domains to Bishop Ekbert in the Szepesség region (now Spiš, Slovakia). Gertrude's youngest brother, Berthold, had been Archbishop of Kalocsa since 1206; he was made Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1209. Andrew's generosity towards his wife's German relatives and courtiers discontented the local lords. According to historian Gyula Kristó, the anonymous author of The Deeds of the Hungarians referred to the Germans from the Holy Roman Empire when he sarcastically mentioned that " the Romans graze on the goods of Hungary."Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 9), p. 27. In 1209, Zadar, which had been lost to the Venetians, was liberated by one of Andrew's Dalmatian vassals, Domald of Sidraga, but the Venetians recaptured the town a year later.
Roman Igorevich reconciled with his brother, Vladimir Igorevich, in early 1209 or 1210. Their united forces vanquished Benedict's army, expelling the Hungarians from Halych. Vladimir Igorevich sent one of his sons, Vsevolod Vladimirovich, "bearing gifts to the king in Hungary"The Hypatian Codex II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle (year 1211), p. 20. to appease Andrew, according to the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle. A group of discontented Hungarian lords offered the crown to Andrew's cousins, the sons of Andrew's uncle, Géza; they lived in "Greek land" (the Byzantine Empire). However, the cousins' envoys were captured in Split in 1210. In the early 1210s, Andrew sent "an army of Saxons, Vlachs, Székelys and Pechenegs" commanded by Joachim, Count of Hermannstadt, (now Sibiu, Romania) to assist Boril of Bulgaria's fight against three rebellious Cuman chieftains. Around the same time, Hungarian troops occupied Belgrade and Barancs (now Braničevo, Serbia), which had been lost to Bulgaria under Emeric. Andrew's army defeated the Cumans at Vidin. Andrew granted the Barcaság (now Țara Bârsei, Romania) to the Teutonic Knights. The Knights were to defend the easternmost regions of the Kingdom of Hungary against the Cumans and encourage their conversion to Catholicism.
A group of boyars, who were alarmed by the despotic acts of Vladimir Igorevich, asked Andrew to restore Daniel Romanovich as ruler of Halych in 1210 or 1211. Andrew and his alliesLeszek I of Poland and at least five Rus' princessent their armies to Halych and restored Daniel Romanovich. Local boyars expelled Daniel Romanovich's mother in 1212. She persuaded Andrew to personally lead his army to Halych. He captured Volodislav Kormilchich, the most influential boyar, and took him to Hungary. After Andrew withdrew from Halych, the boyars again offered the throne to Mstislav Mstislavich, who expelled Daniel Romanovich and his mother from the principality. Andrew departed for a new campaign against Halych in summer 1213. During his absence, Hungarian lords who were aggrieved at Queen Gertrude's favoritism towards her German entourage captured and murdered her and many of her courtiers in the Pilis Hills on 28 September. When he heard of her murder, Andrew returned to Hungary and ordered the execution of the murderer, Peter, son of Töre. However, Peter's accomplices, including Palatine Bánk Bár-Kalán, did not receive severe punishments. A group of Hungarian lords, whom Andrew called "perverts" in one of his letters, was plotting to dethrone Andrew and crown his eldest son, the eight-year-old Béla, but they failed to dethrone him and could only force Andrew to consent to Béla's coronation in 1214.
Andrew and Leszek of Poland signed a treaty of alliance, which obliged Andrew's second son, Coloman, to marry Leszek of Poland's daughter, Salomea. Andrew and Leszek jointly invaded Halych in 1214, and Coloman was made prince. He agreed to cede Przemyśl to Leszek of Poland. The following year, Andrew returned to Halych and captured Przemyśl. Leszek of Poland soon reconciled with Mstislav Mstislavich; they jointly invaded Halych and forced Coloman to flee to Hungary. A new officer of state, the treasurer, was responsible for the administration of the royal chamber from around 1214 onwards. However, royal revenues had significantly diminished. Upon the advice of the treasurer, Denis, son of Ampud, Andrew imposed new taxes and farmed out royal income from minting, salt trade and custom duties. The yearly exchange of coins also produced more revenue for the royal chamber. However, these measures provoked discontent in Hungary.
Andrew signed a new treaty of alliance with Leszek of Poland in the summer of 1216. Leszek and Andrew's son, Coloman, invaded Halych and expelled Mstislav Mstislavich and Daniel Romanovich, after which Coloman was restored. That same year, Andrew met Stephen Nemanjić, Grand Prince of Serbia, in Ravno (now Ćuprija, Serbia). He persuaded Stephen Nemanjić to negotiate with Henry, Latin Emperor of Constantinople, who was the uncle of Andrew's second wife, Yolanda de Courtenay. Stephen Nemanjić was crowned king of Serbia in 1217. Andrew planned to invade Serbia, but Stephen Nemanjić's brother, Sava, dissuaded him, according to both versions of the Life of Sava.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Andrew's crusade (1217–1218)
|
Andrew's crusade (1217–1218)
thumb|right|alt=A horseman with a flag depicting a two-barred cross|Andrew at the head of his crusader army (from the Illuminated Chronicle)
In July 1216, the newly elected Pope Honorius III once again called upon Andrew to fulfill his father's vow to lead a crusade. Andrew, who had postponed the crusade at least three times (in 1201, 1209 and 1213), finally agreed. Steven Runciman, Tibor Almási and other modern historians say that Andrew hoped that his decision would increase his likelihood of being elected as Latin Emperor of Constantinople, because his wife's uncle, Emperor Henry, had died in June. According to a letter written by Pope Honorius in 1217, envoys from the Latin Empire had actually informed Andrew that they planned to elect either him or his father-in-law, Peter of Courtenay, as emperor. Nonetheless, the barons of the Latin Empire elected Peter of Courtenay in the summer of 1216.
Andrew sold and mortgaged royal estates to finance his campaign, which became part of the Fifth Crusade. He renounced his claim to Zadar in favor of the Republic of Venice so that he could secure shipping for his army. He entrusted Hungary to Archbishop John of Esztergom, and entrusted Croatia and Dalmatia to Pontius de Cruce, the Templar prior of Vrana. In July 1217, Andrew departed from Zagreb, accompanied by Dukes Leopold VI of Austria and Otto I of Merania. His army was so largeat least 10,000 mounted soldiers and uncountable infantrymenthat most of it stayed behind when Andrew and his men embarked in Split two months later. The ships transported them to Acre, where they landed in October.
The leaders of the crusade included John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem, Leopold of Austria, the Grand Masters of the Hospitallers, the Templars and the Teutonic Knights. They held a war council in Acre, with Andrew leading the meeting. In early November, the Crusaders launched a campaign for the Jordan River, forcing Al-Adil I, Sultan of Egypt, to withdraw without fighting; the crusaders then pillaged Beisan. After the crusaders returned to Acre, Andrew did not participate in any other military actions. Instead, he collected relics, including a water jug allegedly used at the marriage at Cana, the heads of Saint Stephen and Margaret the Virgin, the right hands of the Apostles Thomas and Bartholomew and a part of Aaron's rod. If Thomas the Archdeacon's report of certain "evil and audacious men" in Acre who "treacherously passed him a poisoned drink"Archdeacon Thomas of Split: History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (ch. 25.), p. 165. is reliable, Andrew's inactivity was because of illness.
Andrew decided to return home at the very beginning of 1218, even though Raoul of Merencourt, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, threatened him with excommunication. Andrew first visited Tripoli and participated in the marriage of Bohemond IV of Antioch and Melisende of Lusignan on 10 January. From Tripoli, he travelled to Cilicia, where he and Leo I of Armenia betrothed Andrew's youngest son, Andrew, and Leo's daughter, Isabella. Andrew proceeded through the Seldjuk Sultanate of Rum before arriving in Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). His cousins (the sons of his uncle, Géza) attacked him when he was in Nicaea. He arranged the marriage of his oldest son, Béla, to Maria Laskarina, a daughter of Emperor Theodore I Laskaris. When he arrived in Bulgaria, Andrew was detained until he "gave full surety that his daughter would be united in marriage" to Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria, according to Thomas the Archdeacon. Andrew returned to Hungary in late 1218. Andrew's "crusade had achieved nothing and brought him no honor", according to historian Thomas Van Cleve. Oliver of Paderborn, James of Vitry and other 13th-century authors blamed Andrew for the failure of the crusade. Stephen Donnachie says that "...from examining Honorius’s registers and the diplomatic communications between Andrew and the papal curia, Andrew’s genuine commitment to the crusade should not be doubted nor his extensive preparations for the campaign dismissed, even if he did ultimately bungle his opportunity."Donnachie, Stephen. "review of 'Curia and Crusade: Pope Honorius III and the Recovery of the Holy Land, 1216–1227'", (review no. 2259) Date accessed: 4 January 2020
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Golden Bull (1218–1222)
|
Golden Bull (1218–1222)
thumb|right|alt=A manuscript with a seal attached to it|The Golden Bull of 1222
When he returned to Hungary, Andrew complained to Pope Honorius that his kingdom was "in a miserable and destroyed state, deprived of all of its revenues." A group of barons had even expelled Archbishop John from Hungary. Andrew was in massive debt because of his crusade, which forced him to impose extraordinarily high taxes and debase coinage. In 1218 or 1219, Mstislav Mstislavich invaded Halych and captured Andrew's son, Coloman. Andrew compromised with Mstislavich. Coloman was released, and Andrew's youngest son and namesake was betrothed to Mstislavich's daughter. In 1220, a group of lords persuaded Andrew to make his eldest son, Béla, the duke of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia.
Andrew employed Jews and Muslims to administer royal revenues, which caused a discord between Andrew and the Holy See starting in the early 1220s. Pope Honorius urged Andrew and Queen Yolanda to prohibit Muslims from employing Christians. Andrew confirmed the privileges of clergymen, including their exemption from taxes and their right to be exclusively judged by church courts, but also prohibited the consecration of udvornici, castle folk and other serfs in early 1222. However, a new conflict emerged between Andrew and the Holy See after he persuaded Béla to separate from his wife, Maria Laskarina. An "immense crowd" approached Andrew around April 1222, demanding "grave and unjust things", according to a letter of Pope Honorius. Actually, the royal servantswho were landowners directly subject to the monarch's power and obliged to fight in the royal armyassembled, forcing Andrew to dismiss Julius Kán and his other officials. Andrew was also forced to issue a royal charter, the Golden Bull of 1222. The charter summarized the liberties of the royal servants, including their exemption from taxes and the jurisdiction of the ispáns. The last clause of the Golden Bull authorized "the bishops as well as the other barons and nobles of the realm, singularly and in common" to resist the monarch if he did not honor the provisions of the charter. The Golden Bull clearly distinguished the royal servants from the king's other subjects, which led to the rise of the Hungarian nobility. The Golden Bull is commonly compared with England's Magna Carta – a similar charter which was sealed a few years earlier in 1215. A significant difference between them is that, in England, the settlement strengthened the position of all the royal subjects but, in Hungary, the aristocracy came to dominate both the crown and the lower orders.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Conflicts with son and the Church (1222–1234)
|
Conflicts with son and the Church (1222–1234)
Andrew discharged Palatine Theodore Csanád and restored Julius Kán in the second half of 1222. The following year, Pope Honorius urged Andrew to launch a new crusade. If the report of the Continuatio Claustroneuburgensis is reliable, Andrew took the cross to show that he intended to launch a new crusade, but no other sources mention this event. Andrew planned to arrange a new marriage for his eldest son, Béla, but Pope Honorius mediated a reconciliation between Béla and his wife in the autumn of 1223. This angered Andrew, and Béla fled to Austria. He returned in 1224 after the bishops persuaded Andrew to forgive him.
In his Diploma Andreanum of 1224, Andrew confirmed the privileges of the "Saxons" who inhabited the region of Hermannstadt in southern Transylvania (now Sibiu, Romania). The following year, he launched a campaign against the Teutonic Knights, who had attempted to eliminate his suzerainty. The Knights were forced to leave Barcaság and the neighboring lands. Andrew's envoys and Leopold VI of Austria signed a treaty on 6 June, which ended the armed conflicts along the Hungarian-Austrian border. As part of the treaty, Leopold VI paid an indemnification for the damages that his troops had caused in Hungary. Andrew made his oldest son, Béla, Duke of Transylvania. Béla's former duchy was given to Andrew's second son, Coloman, in 1226. Duke Béla started expanding his suzerainty over the Cumans, who inhabited the lands east of the Carpathian Mountains. Andrew launched a campaign against Mstislav Mstislavich in 1226 because the latter refused to grant Halych to Andrew's youngest son despite a previous compromise. Andrew besieged and captured Przemyśl, Terebovl, and other fortresses in Halych. However, his troops were routed at Kremenets and Zvenigorod, forcing him to withdraw. Despite his victories, Mstislavich ceded Halych to Andrew's son in early 1227.
thumb|left|upright|alt=A crowned man holding a sealed document|Andrew's statute on Heroes' Square in Budapest
In 1228, Andrew authorized his son, Béla, to revise his previous land grants. Pope Honorius also supported Béla's efforts. Béla confiscated the domains of two noblemen, Simon Kacsics and Bánk Bár-Kalán, who had taken part in the conspiracy to murder Queen Gertrude. In 1229, upon Béla's proposal, Andrew confirmed the privileges of the Cuman chieftains who had subjected themselves to Béla. Robert, Archbishop of Esztergom, made a complaint about Andrew to the Holy See, because Andrew continued to employ Jews and Muslims. Pope Gregory IX authorized the archbishop to perform acts of religious censure to persuade Andrew to dismiss his non-Christian officials. Under duress, Andrew issued a new Golden Bull in 1231, which confirmed that Muslims were banned from employment, and empowered the Archbishop of Esztergom to excommunicate the king if he failed to honor the provisions of the new Golden Bull. In the second half of the year, Andrew invaded Halych and restored his youngest son, Andrew, to the throne.
Archbishop Robert excommunicated Palatine Denis and put Hungary under an interdict on 25 February 1232, because the employment of Jews and Muslims continued despite the Golden Bull of 1231. Since the archbishop accused the Muslims of persuading Andrew to seize church property, Andrew restored properties to the archbishop, who soon suspended the interdict. Upon Andrew's demand, Pope Gregory sent Cardinal Giacomo di Pecorari as his legate to Hungary and promised that nobody would be excommunicated without the pope's special authorization. Although Andrew departed for Halych to support his youngest son in a fight against Daniel Romanivich, he continued his negotiations with the papal legate. On 20 August 1233, in the forests of Bereg, he vowed that he would not employ Jews and Muslims to administrate royal revenues, and would pay 10,000 marks as compensation for usurped Church revenues. Andrew repeated his oath in Esztergom in September.
Andrew and Frederick II, Duke of Austria, signed a peace treaty in late 1233. Andrew, who had been widowed, married the 23-year-old Beatrice d'Este on 14 May 1234, even though his sons were sharply opposed to his third marriage. John, Bishop of Bosnia, put Hungary under a new interdict in the first half of 1234, because Andrew had not dismissed his non-Christian officials despite his oath of Bereg. Andrew and Archbishop Robert of Esztergom protested against the bishop's act at the Holy See.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Last years (1234–1235)
|
Last years (1234–1235)
Danilo Romanovich laid siege to Halych, and Andrew's youngest son died during the siege in the autumn of 1234. However, Andrew stormed Austria in the summer of 1235, forcing Duke Frederick to pay an indemnification for damages that his troops had caused while raiding Hungary. Upon Andrew's demand, Pope Gregory declared on 31 August that Andrew and his sons could only be excommunicated by the authorization of the Holy See. Andrew died on 21 September, and was buried in Egres Abbey.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Family
|
Family
Andrew's first wife, Gertrude of Merania, was born around 1185, according to historian Gyula Kristó. Their first child, Mary, was born in 1203 or 1204. She became the wife of Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria. Andrew's eldest son, Béla, was born in 1206. He later succeeded his father as king. Andrew's daughter Elisabeth was born in 1207. She married Louis IV, Landgrave of Thuringia. She died in 1231 and was canonized during her father's life. Andrew's second son, Coloman, was born in 1208. His third son, Andrew, was born around 1210. Princes Coloman and Andrew each ruled the Principality of Halych for a short period.
Two years after his first wife was murdered, Andrew married Yolanda de Courtenay, who was born around 1198. Their only child, Yolanda, was born around 1219 and married James I of Aragon. Andrew's third wife, Beatrice d'Este, was about twenty-three when they married in 1234. She gave birth to a son, Stephen, after Andrew's death. However, Andrew's two older sons, Béla and Coloman, accused her of adultery and considered her child to be a bastard. Her grandson, Andrew, became the last monarch of the House of Árpád.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Notes
|
Notes
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
References
|
References
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Sources
|
Sources
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Primary sources
|
Primary sources
Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (Edited, Translated and Annotated by Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy) (2010). In: Rady, Martyn; Veszprémy, László; Bak, János M. (2010); Anonymus and Master Roger; CEU Press; .
Archdeacon Thomas of Split: History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (Latin text by Olga Perić, edited, translated and annotated by Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević Sokol and James Ross Sweeney) (2006). CEU Press. .
The Hypatian Codex II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle (An annotated translation by George A. Perfecky) (1973). Wilhelm Fink Verlag. LCCN 72-79463.
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Secondary sources
|
Secondary sources
Category:1170s births
Category:1235 deaths
Category:12th-century Hungarian people
Category:13th-century Hungarian monarchs
Category:Kings of Hungary
Category:Kings of Croatia
Category:House of Árpád
Category:Christians of the Fifth Crusade
Category:Burials at Oradea Cathedral, Crişana
Category:Princes of Halych
|
Andrew II of Hungary
|
Table of Content
|
short description, Early life, Childhood and youth ({{circa}} 1177–1197), Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia (1197–1204), Nephew's guardian (1204–1205), Reign, "New institutions" and campaigns in Halych (1205–1217), Andrew's crusade (1217–1218), Golden Bull (1218–1222), Conflicts with son and the Church (1222–1234), Last years (1234–1235), Family, Notes, References, Sources, Primary sources, Secondary sources
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
Short description
|
thumb|right|150px|David Hume by Allan Ramsay (1766)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a book by the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume, published in English in 1748 under the title Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding until a 1757 edition came up with the now-familiar name.Thomas Edmund Jessop, A Bibliography of David Hume and of Scottish Philosophy from Francis Hutcheson to Lord Balfour, 1966, pp.12--20.See via Google Books It was a revision of an earlier effort, Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, published anonymously in London in 1739–40. Hume was disappointed with the reception of the Treatise, which "fell dead-born from the press,"Hume, David (1776), My Own Life, Appendix A of Ernest Campbell Mossner, The Life of David Hume, University of Texas Press, 1954. as he put it, and so tried again to disseminate his more developed ideas to the public by writing a shorter and more polemical work.
The end product of his labours was the Enquiry. The Enquiry dispensed with much of the material from the Treatise, in favor of clarifying and emphasizing its most important aspects. For example, Hume's views on personal identity do not appear. However, more vital propositions, such as Hume's argument for the role of habit in a theory of knowledge, are retained.
This book has proven highly influential, both in the years that would immediately follow and today. Immanuel Kant points to it as the book which woke him from his self-described "dogmatic slumber."I. Kant "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" The Enquiry is widely regarded as a classic in modern philosophical literature.
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
Content
|
Content
The argument of the Enquiry proceeds by a series of incremental steps, separated into chapters which logically succeed one another. After expounding his epistemology, Hume explains how to apply his principles to specific topics.
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
1. Of the different species of philosophy
|
1. Of the different species of philosophy
In the first section of the Enquiry, Hume provides a rough introduction to philosophy as a whole. For Hume, philosophy can be split into two general parts: natural philosophy and the philosophy of human nature (or, as he calls it, "moral philosophy"). The latter investigates both actions and thoughts. He emphasizes in this section, by way of warning, that philosophers with nuanced thoughts will likely be cast aside in favor of those whose conclusions more intuitively match popular opinion. However, he insists, precision helps art and craft of all kinds, including the craft of philosophy.
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
2. Of the origin of ideas
|
2. Of the origin of ideas
Next, Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less vivacious than impressions. For example, the idea of the taste of an orange is far inferior to the impression (or sensation) of actually eating one. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas.
Hume accepts that ideas may be either the product of mere sensation or of the imagination working in conjunction with sensation.In Locke's terminology, this was known as the division between simple and complex ideas of sense. According to Hume, the creative faculty makes use of (at least) four mental operations that produce imaginings out of sense-impressions. These operations are compounding (or the addition of one idea onto another, such as a horn on a horse to create a unicorn); transposing (or the substitution of one part of a thing with the part from another, such as with the body of a man upon a horse to make a centaur); augmenting (as with the case of a giant, whose size has been augmented); and diminishing (as with Lilliputians, whose size has been diminished). (Hume 1974:317) In a later chapter, he also mentions the operations of mixing, separating, and dividing. (Hume 1974:340) thumb|Fig. 1. The Missing Shade of Blue
However, Hume admits that there is one objection to his account: the problem of "The Missing Shade of Blue". In this thought-experiment, he asks us to imagine a man who has experienced every shade of blue except for one (see Fig. 1). He predicts that this man will be able to divine the color of this particular shade of blue, despite the fact that he has never experienced it. This seems to pose a serious problem for the empirical account, though Hume brushes it aside as an exceptional case by stating that one may experience a novel idea that itself is derived from combinations of previous impressions. (Hume 1974:319)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
3. Of the association of ideas
|
3. Of the association of ideas
In this chapter, Hume discusses how thoughts tend to come in sequences, as in trains of thought. He explains that there are at least three kinds of associations between ideas: resemblance, contiguity in space-time, and cause-and-effect. He argues that there must be some universal principle that must account for the various sorts of connections that exist between ideas. However, he does not immediately show what this principle might be. (Hume 1974:320-321)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
4. Sceptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding (in two parts)
|
4. Sceptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding (in two parts)
In the first part, Hume discusses how the objects of inquiry are either "relations of ideas" or "matters of fact", which is roughly the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. The former, he tells the reader, are proved by demonstration, while the latter are given through experience. (Hume 1974:322) In explaining how matters of fact are entirely a product of experience, he dismisses the notion that they may be arrived at through a priori reasoning. For Hume, every effect only follows its cause arbitrarily—they are entirely distinct from one another. (Hume 1974:324)
In part two, Hume inquires into how anyone can justifiably believe that experience yields any conclusions about the world:
"When it is asked, What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humor, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication." (Hume 1974:328)
He shows how a satisfying argument for the validity of experience can be based neither on demonstration (since "it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change") nor experience (since that would be a circular argument). (Hume 1974:330-332) Here he is describing what would become known as the problem of induction.
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
5. Sceptical solution of these doubts (in two parts)
|
5. Sceptical solution of these doubts (in two parts)
According to Hume, we assume that experience tells us something about the world because of habit or custom, which human nature forces us to take seriously. This is also, presumably, the "principle" that organizes the connections between ideas. Indeed, one of the many famous passages of the Enquiry is on the topic of the incorrigibility of human custom. In Section XII, Of the academical or sceptical philosophy, Hume will argue,
"The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of skepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined skeptic in the same condition as other mortals." (Hume 1974:425)
In the second part, he provides an account of beliefs. He explains that the difference between belief and fiction is that the former produces a certain feeling of confidence which the latter doesn't. (Hume 1974:340)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
6. Of probability
|
6. Of probability
This short chapter begins with the notions of probability and chance. For him, "probability" means a higher chance of occurring, and brings about a higher degree of subjective expectation in the viewer. By "chance", he means all those particular comprehensible events which the viewer considers possible in accord with the viewer's experience. However, further experience takes these equal chances, and forces the imagination to observe that certain chances arise more frequently than others. These gentle forces upon the imagination cause the viewer to have strong beliefs in outcomes. This effect may be understood as another case of custom or habit taking past experience and using it to predict the future. (Hume 1974:346-348)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
7. Of the idea of necessary connection (in two parts)
|
7. Of the idea of necessary connection (in two parts)
right|thumb|150px|Nicolas Malebranche, one of Hume's philosophical opponents
By "necessary connection", Hume means the power or force which necessarily ties one idea to another. He rejects the notion that any sensible qualities are necessarily conjoined, since that would mean we could know something prior to experience. Unlike his predecessors, Berkeley and Locke, Hume rejects the idea that volitions or impulses of the will may be inferred to necessarily connect to the actions they produce by way of some sense of the power of the will. He reasons that, 1. if we knew the nature of this power, then the mind-body divide would seem totally unmysterious to us; 2. if we had immediate knowledge of this mysterious power, then we would be able to intuitively explain why it is that we can control some parts of our bodies (e.g., our hands or tongues), and not others (e.g., the liver or heart); 3. we have no immediate knowledge of the powers which allow an impulse of volition to create an action (e.g., of the "muscles, and nerves, and animal spirits" which are the immediate cause of an action). (Hume 1974:353-354) He produces like arguments against the notion that we have knowledge of these powers as they affect the mind alone. (Hume 1974:355-356) He also argues in brief against the idea that causes are mere occasions of the will of some god(s), a view associated with the philosopher Nicolas Malebranche. (Hume 1974:356-359)
Having dispensed with these alternative explanations, he identifies the source of our knowledge of necessary connections as arising out of observation of constant conjunction of certain impressions across many instances. In this way, people know of necessity through rigorous custom or habit, and not from any immediate knowledge of the powers of the will. (Hume 1974:361)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
8. Of liberty and necessity (in two parts)
|
8. Of liberty and necessity (in two parts)
Here Hume tackles the problem of how liberty may be reconciled with metaphysical necessity (otherwise known as a compatibilist formulation of free will). Hume believes that all disputes on the subject have been merely verbal arguments—that is to say, arguments which are based on a lack of prior agreement on definitions. He first shows that it is clear that most events are deterministic, but human actions are more controversial. However, he thinks that these too occur out of necessity since an outside observer can see the same regularity that he would in a purely physical system. To show the compatibility of necessity and liberty, Hume defines liberty as the ability to act on the basis of one's will e.g. the capacity to will one's actions but not to will one's will. He then shows (quite briefly) how determinism and free will are compatible notions, and have no bad consequences on ethics or moral life.
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
9. Of the reason of animals
|
9. Of the reason of animals
Hume insists that the conclusions of the Enquiry will be very powerful if they can be shown to apply to animals and not just humans. He believed that animals were able to infer the relation between cause and effect in the same way that humans do: through learned expectations. (Hume 1974:384) He also notes that this "inferential" ability that animals have is not through reason, but custom alone. Hume concludes that there is an innate faculty of instincts which both beasts and humans share, namely, the ability to reason experimentally (through custom). Nevertheless, he admits, humans and animals differ in mental faculties in a number of ways, including: differences in memory and attention, inferential abilities, ability to make deductions in a long chain, ability to grasp ideas more or less clearly, the human capacity to worry about conflating unrelated circumstances, a sagely prudence which arrests generalizations, a capacity for a greater inner library of analogies to reason with, an ability to detach oneself and scrap one's own biases, and an ability to converse through language (and thus gain from the experience of others' testimonies). (Hume 1974:385, footnote 17.)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
10. Of miracles (in two parts)
|
10. Of miracles (in two parts)
The next topic which Hume strives to give treatment is that of the reliability of human testimony, and of the role that testimony plays a part in epistemology. This was not an idle concern for Hume. Depending on its outcome, the entire treatment would give the epistemologist a degree of certitude in the treatment of miracles.
True to his empirical thesis, Hume tells the reader that, though testimony does have some force, it is never quite as powerful as the direct evidence of the senses. That said, he provides some reasons why we may have a basis for trust in the testimony of persons: because a) human memory can be relatively tenacious; and b) because people are inclined to tell the truth, and ashamed of telling falsities. Needless to say, these reasons are only to be trusted to the extent that they conform to experience. (Hume 1974:389)
And there are a number of reasons to be skeptical of human testimony, also based on experience. If a) testimonies conflict one another, b) there are a small number of witnesses, c) the speaker has no integrity, d) the speaker is overly hesitant or bold, or e) the speaker is known to have motives for lying, then the epistemologist has reason to be skeptical of the speaker's claims. (Hume 1974:390)
There is one final criterion that Hume thinks gives us warrant to doubt any given testimony, and that is f) if the propositions being communicated are miraculous. Hume understands a miracle to be any event which contradicts the laws of nature. He argues that the laws of nature have an overwhelming body of evidence behind them, and are so well demonstrated to everyone's experience, that any deviation from those laws necessarily flies in the face of all evidence. (Hume 1974:391-392)
Moreover, he stresses that talk of the miraculous has no surface validity, for four reasons. First, he explains that in all of history there has never been a miracle which was attested to by a wide body of disinterested experts. Second, he notes that human beings delight in a sense of wonder, and this provides a villain with an opportunity to manipulate others. Third, he thinks that those who hold onto the miraculous have tended towards barbarism. Finally, since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous—that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle—any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating. (Hume 1974:393-398)
Still, Hume takes care to warn that historians are generally to be trusted with confidence, so long as their reports on facts are extensive and uniform. However, he seems to suggest that historians are as fallible at interpreting the facts as the rest of humanity. Thus, if every historian were to claim that there was a solar eclipse in the year 1600, then though we might at first naively regard that as in violation of natural laws, we'd come to accept it as a fact. But if every historian were to assert that Queen Elizabeth was observed walking around happy and healthy after her funeral, and then interpreted that to mean that they had risen from the dead, then we'd have reason to appeal to natural laws in order to dispute their interpretation. (Hume 1974:400-402)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
11. Of a particular providence and of a future state
|
11. Of a particular providence and of a future state
Hume continues his application of epistemology to theology by an extended discussion on heaven and hell. The brunt of this chapter allegedly narrates the opinions, not of Hume, but of one of Hume's anonymous friends, who again presents them in an imagined speech by the philosopher Epicurus. His friend argues that, though it is possible to trace a cause from an effect, it is not possible to infer unseen effects from a cause thus traced. The friend insists, then, that even though we might postulate that there is a first cause behind all things—God—we can't infer anything about the afterlife, because we don't know anything of the afterlife from experience, and we can't infer it from the existence of God. (Hume 1974:408)
Hume offers his friend an objection: if we see an unfinished building, then can't we infer that it has been created by humans with certain intentions, and that it will be finished in the future? His friend concurs, but indicates that there is a relevant disanalogy that we can't pretend to know the contents of the mind of God, while we can know the designs of other humans. Hume seems essentially persuaded by his friend's reasoning. (Hume 1974:412-414)
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
12. Of the academical or skeptical philosophy (in three parts)
|
12. Of the academical or skeptical philosophy (in three parts)
The first section of the last chapter is well organized as an outline of various skeptical arguments. The treatment includes the arguments of atheism, Cartesian skepticism, "light" skepticism, and rationalist critiques of empiricism. Hume shows that even light skepticism leads to crushing doubts about the world which - while they ultimately are philosophically justifiable - may only be combated through the non-philosophical adherence to custom or habit. He ends the section with his own reservations towards Cartesian and Lockean epistemologies.
In the second section he returns to the topic of hard skepticism by sharply denouncing it.
"For here is the chief and most confounding objection to excessive skepticism, that no durable good can ever result from it; while it remains in its full force and vigor. We need only ask such a skeptic, What his meaning is? And what he proposes by all these curious researches? He is immediately at a loss, and knows not what to answer... a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail." (Hume 1974:426)
He concludes the volume by setting out the limits of knowledge once and for all. "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."Hume, D., Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals Reprinted from 1777 edition, Third Edition, L. A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford, Sect. XII, Part III, p.165.
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
Critiques and rejoinders
|
Critiques and rejoinders
The criteria Hume lists in his examination of the validity of human testimony are roughly upheld in modern social psychology, under the rubric of the communication-persuasion paradigm. Supporting literature includes: the work of social impact theory, which discusses persuasion in part through the number of persons engaging in influence; as well as studies made on the relative influence of communicator credibility in different kinds of persuasion; and examinations of the trustworthiness of the speaker.
The "custom" view of learning can in many ways be likened to associationist psychology. This point of view has been subject to severe criticism in the research of the 20th century. Still, testing on the subject has been somewhat divided. Testing on certain animals like cats have concluded that they do not possess any faculty which allow their minds to grasp an insight into cause and effect. However, it has been shown that some animals, like chimpanzees, were able to generate creative plans of action to achieve their goals, and thus would seem to have a causal insight which transcends mere custom.Kohler, Wolfgang. (1925). The mentality of apes. New York: Harcourt. Cited from: Passer, Michael et al. (2003). Psychology: Frontiers and Applications. First Canadian Edition. McGraw-Hill: Toronto. p. 267.
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
Legacy
|
Legacy
Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Hume and remarked in a letter to Moritz Schlick that he had read Hume's book and the works of Ernst Mach "with eagerness and admiration shortly before finding relativity theory" and that "very possibly, I wouldn't have come to the solution without those philosophical studies".
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
References
|
References
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
External links
|
External links
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Mirrored at eBooks@Adelaide
A version of this work, slightly edited for easier reading
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding The Enquiry hosted at infidels.org
Category:1748 non-fiction books
Category:Books by David Hume
Category:Epistemology literature
|
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
|
Table of Content
|
Short description, Content, 1. Of the different species of philosophy, 2. Of the origin of ideas, 3. Of the association of ideas, 4. Sceptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding (in two parts), 5. Sceptical solution of these doubts (in two parts), 6. Of probability, 7. Of the idea of necessary connection (in two parts), 8. Of liberty and necessity (in two parts), 9. Of the reason of animals, 10. Of miracles (in two parts), 11. Of a particular providence and of a future state, 12. Of the academical or skeptical philosophy (in three parts), Critiques and rejoinders, Legacy, References, External links
|
André de Longjumeau
|
short description
|
thumb|
André de Longjumeau (also known as Andrew of Longjumeau in English) was a French diplomat and Dominican missionary and one of the most active Occidental diplomats in the East in the 13th century. He led two embassies to the Mongols: the first carried letters from Pope Innocent IV and the second bore gifts and letters from Louis IX of France to Güyük Khan. Well acquainted with the Middle East, he spoke Arabic and "Chaldean" (thought to be either Syriac or Persian).
|
André de Longjumeau
|
Mission for the holy Crown of Thorns
|
Mission for the holy Crown of Thorns
thumb|André went to Constantinople to obtain the crown of thorns bought by Louis IX from Baldwin II, Latin Emperor. It is preserved today in a 19th-century reliquary, in Notre-Dame de Paris.
André's first mission to the East was when he was asked by the French king Louis IX to go to Constantinople to obtain the crown of thorns that had been sold to him by the Latin emperor Baldwin II in 1238, who was anxious to obtain support for his empire. André was accompanied on this mission by a Dominican friar, brother Jacques.
|
André de Longjumeau
|
Papal mission to the Mongols (1245–1247)
|
Papal mission to the Mongols (1245–1247)
André of Longjumeau led one of four missions dispatched to the Mongols by Pope Innocent IV. He left Lyon in the spring of 1245 for the Levant.
He visited Muslim principalities in Syria and representatives of the Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox Church in Seljuk Persia, finally delivering the papal correspondence to a Mongol general near Tabriz. In Tabriz, André de Longjumeau met with a monk from the Far East named Simeon Rabban Ata, who had been put in charge by the Khan of protecting Christians in the Middle East.
|
André de Longjumeau
|
Second mission to the Mongols (1249–1251)
|
Second mission to the Mongols (1249–1251)
At the Mongol camp near Kars, André had met a certain David, who in December 1248 appeared at the court of King Louis IX of France, who was preparing his armies in the allied Kingdom of Cyprus. André, who was now with the French King, interpreted David's words as a real or pretended offer of alliance from the Mongol general Eljigidei, and a proposal of a joint attack on Ayyubid Syria. In reply to this, the French sovereign dispatched André as his ambassador to Güyük Khan. Longjumeau went with his brother Jacques (also a Dominican) and several others – John Goderiche, John of Carcassonne, Herbert "Le Sommelier", Gerbert of Sens, Robert (a clerk), a certain William, and an unnamed clerk of Poissy.
The party set out on 16 February 1249, with letters from King Louis and the papal legate, and lavish presents, including a chapel tent lined with scarlet cloth and embroidered with sacred pictures. From Cyprus they went to the port of Antioch in Syria, and thence traveled for a year to the Khan's court, going ten leagues (55.56 kilometers) per day. Their route led them through Persia, along the southern and eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, and certainly through Taraz, north-east of Tashkent.
Upon arrival at the supreme Mongol court – either that on the Emil River (near Lake Alakol and the present Russo-Chinese frontier in the Altai Mountains), or more probably at or near Karakorum itself, southwest of Lake Baikal – André found Güyük Khan dead, poisoned, as the envoy supposed, by Batu Khan's agents. The regent Oghul Qaimish, Güyük Khan's widow (the "Camus" of William of Rubruck), seems to have received him with presents and a dismissive letter for Louis IX. It is certain that before the friar had left "Tartary", Möngke, Güyük's successor, had been elected khagan.
André's report to his sovereign, whom he rejoined in 1251 at Caesarea Palaestina, appears to have been a mixture of history and fable; the latter affects his narrative of the Mongols' rise to greatness, and the struggles of their leader Genghis Khan with the mythical Prester John, and in the supposed location of the Mongols' homeland, close to the prison of Gog and Magog. On the other hand, the envoy's account of Mongol customs is fairly accurate, and his statements about Mongol Christianity and its prosperity, though perhaps exaggerated (e.g. as to the 800 chapels on wheels in the nomadic host) are likely factual.
Mounds of bones marked his road, witnesses of devastations that other historians record in detail. He found Christian prisoners from Germany in the heart of "Tartary" at Taraz and was compelled to observe the ceremony of passing between two fires, as a bringer of gifts to a dead Genghis Khan, gifts which were treated by the Mongols as evidence of submission. This insulting behavior, and the language of the letter with which André reappeared, marked the mission a failure: King Louis, says Jean de Joinville, "se repenti fort" ("felt very sorry").
|
André de Longjumeau
|
Death
|
Death
The date and location of André's death is unknown.
We only know of André through references in other writers: see especially William of Rubruck's in Recueil de voyages, iv. (Paris, 1839), pp. 261, 265, 279, 296, 310, 353, 363, 370; Joinville, ed. Francisque Michel (1858, etc.), pp. 142, etc.; Jean Pierre Sarrasin, in same vol., pp. 254–235; William of Nangis in Recueil des historiens des Gaules, xx. 359–367; Rémusat, Mémoires sur les relations politiques des princes chrétiens… avec les… Mongols (1822, etc.), p. 52.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.