Chariot racing (, ) was one of the most popular ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports. In Greece, chariot racing played an essential role in aristocratic funeral games from a very early time. With the institution of formal races and permanent racetracks, chariot racing was adopted by many Greek states and their religious festivals. Horses and chariots were very costly. Their ownership was a preserve of the wealthiest aristocrats, whose reputations and status benefitted from offering such extravagant, exciting displays. Their successes could be further broadcast and celebrated through commissioned odes and other poetry.

In standard Greek racing practise, each chariot held a single driver and was pulled by four horses, or sometimes two. Drivers and horses risked serious injury or death through collisions and crashes; this added to the excitement and interest for spectators. Most charioteers were slaves or contracted professionals. While records almost invariably credit victorious owners and their horses for winning, their drivers are often not mentioned at all. In the ancient Olympic Games, and other Panhellenic Games, chariot racing was one of the most important equestrian events, and could be watched by unmarried women. Married women were banned from watching any Olympic events but a Spartan noble-woman is known to have trained horse-teams for the Olympics and won two races, one of them as driver.

In ancient Rome, chariot racing was the most popular of many subsidised public entertainments, and was an essential component in several religious festivals. Roman chariot drivers had very low social status, but were paid a fee simply for taking part. Winners were celebrated and well paid for their victories, regardless of status, and the best could earn more than the wealthiest lawyers and senators. Racing team managers may have competed for the services of particularly skilled drivers and their horses. The drivers could race as individuals, or under Team colours:  Blue, Green, Red or White. Spectators generally chose to support a single team, and identify themselves with its fortunes. Private betting on the races raised large sums for the teams, drivers and wealthy backers. Generous imperial subsidies of "bread and circuses" kept the Roman masses fed, entertained and distracted. Organised violence between rival racing factions was not uncommon, but it was generally contained. Roman and later Byzantine emperors, mistrustful of private organisations as potentially subversive, took control of the teams, especially the Blues and Greens, and appointed officials to manage them.

Chariot racing faded in importance in the Western Roman Empire after the fall of Rome; the last known race there was staged in the Circus Maximus in 594, by the Ostrogothic king, Totila. In the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, the traditional Roman chariot-racing factions continued to play a prominent role in mass entertainment, religion and politics for several centuries. Supporters of the Blue teams vied with supporters of the Greens for control of foreign, domestic and religious policies, and Imperial subsidies for themselves. Their displays of civil discontent and disobedience culminated in an indiscriminate slaughter of Byzantine citizenry by the military in the Nika riots. Thereafter, rising costs and a failing economy saw the gradual decline of Byzantine chariot racing.

Early Greece
Images on pottery show that chariot racing existed in thirteenth century BC Mycenaean Greece. The first literary reference to a chariot race is in Homer's poetic account of the funeral games for Patroclus, in the Iliad, combining practices from the author's own time (c. 8th century) with accounts based on a legendary past. The participants in this race were drawn from leading figures among the Greeks; Diomedes of Argos, the poet Eumelus, the Achaean prince Antilochus, King Menelaus of Sparta, and the hero Meriones. The race, which was one lap around the stump of a tree, was won by Diomedes, who received a slave woman and a cauldron as his prize. A chariot race also was said to be the event that founded the Olympic Games; according to one legend, mentioned by Pindar, King Oenomaus challenged suitors for his daughter Hippodamia to a race, but was defeated by Pelops, who founded the Games in honour of his victory.

Olympic Games

The Olympic Games were traditionally founded in 776 BC, by the Eleans, a wealthy, prestigious horse-owning aristocracy. Pindar, the earliest source for the Olympics, includes chariot racing among their five foundation events. Much later, Pausanias claims that chariot races were added only from 680 BC, and that the games were extended from one day to two days to accommodate them. In this tradition, the foot race of a stadion (approximately 600 feet) offered the greater prestige. Votive offerings associated with  Olympic victories include horses and chariots.  The single horse race (the ) was a late arrival at the games, dropped early in their history. The major chariot-races of the Olympic and other Panhellenic Games, were four-horse (, ) and two-horse (, ) events.

Pausanias describes the Olympic hippodrome of the second century AD, when Greece was part of the Roman Empire. The perimeter groundplan, southeast of the sanctuary itself, was approximately 780 meters long and 320 meters wide.  Competitors raced from the starting-place counter-clockwise around the nearest (western) turning post, then turned at the eastern turning post and headed back west. The number of circuits varied according to the event. Spectators could watch from natural embankments to the north, and artificial embankments to the south and east. A place on the western side of the north bank was reserved for the judges. Pausanias does not describe a central dividing barrier at Olympia, but archaeologist Vikatou presumes one.

Pausanias offers several theories regarding the origins of an object named Taraxippus ("Horse-disturber"), an ancient round altar, tomb or Heroon embedded within one of the entrance-ways to the track. It was thought to be malevolent, as it terrified horses for no apparent reason when they raced past it, and was a major cause of crashes. Pausanias reports that consequently "the charioteers offer sacrifice, and pray that Taraxippus may show himself propitious". It might simply have marked the most dangerous and difficult section of track, at the semi-circular end. Pausanias describes very similar, identically named places in other Greek hippodromes. Their name may have been an epithet of Poseidon, patron deity of horses and horse-racing.{{efn|name=LifeGreece218|Little is known of the construction of Greek hippodromes before the Roman period.

Races began with a procession into the hippodrome, while a herald announced the names of the drivers and owners. The tethrippon consisted of twelve laps. The most immediate and challenging aspect of the races for drivers, judges and stewards was ensuring a fair start, and keeping false starts and crushes to a minimum. Then as now, the marshalling of over-excited racehorses could prove a major difficulty. Various mechanical devices were used to reduce the likelihood of human error. Portable starting gates (hyspleges, singular: hysplex), employed a tight cord in a wooden frame, loosened to drop forwards and start the race. According to Pausanias, the chariot furthest from the start-line began to move, followed by the rest in sequence, so that when the final gate was opened, all the chariots would be in motion at the starting line. A bronze eagle (a sign of Zeus, who was patron of the Olympic games) was raised to start the race, and at each lap, a bronze dolphin (a sign of Poseidon) was lowered. The central pair of horses did most of the heavy pulling, via the yoke. The flanking pair pulled and guided, using their traces. Horse teams were highly trained, and tractable. Greek aficionadoes thought mares the best horses for chariot racing.

Owners and charioteers

In most cases, the owner and the driver of the Greek racing chariot were different persons. In 416 BC, the Athenian general Alcibiades had seven chariots in the race, and came in first, second, and fourth; evidently, he could not have been racing all seven chariots himself. Chariot teams were costly to own and train, and the case of Alcibiades shows that for the wealthy, this was an effective and honourable form of self-publicity; they were not expected to risk their own lives. On the other hand, they were not necessarily dishonoured when they did. The poet Pindar praised Herodotes for driving his own chariot, "using his own hands rather than another's".

Entries were exclusively Greek, or claimed to be so. Philip II of Macedon, pre-eminent through his conquest of most Greek states and self-promotion as a divinity, entered his horse and chariot teams in several major pan-Hellenic events, and won several. He celebrated the fact on his coinage, claiming it as divine confirmation of his legitimacy as Greek overlord.

Women could win races through ownership, though there was a ban on the participation of married women as competitors or even spectators at the Olympics, supposedly on pain of death; this was not typical of Greek festivals in general, and there is no consistent record of this ban, or the penalty's enforcement.  The Spartan Cynisca, daughter of Archidamus II, entered and won the Olympic chariot race, twice as owner and trainer, and at least once as driver.

Most charioteers were slaves or hired professionals. Drivers and their horses needed strength, skill, courage, endurance and prolonged, intensive training. Like jockeys, charioteers were ideally slight of build, and therefore often young, but unlike jockeys, they were also tall. The names of very few charioteers are known from the Greek racing circuits, Victory songs, epigrams and other monuments routinely omit the names of winning drivers.

The chariots themselves resembled war chariots, essentially wooden two-wheeled carts with an open back, though by this time chariots were no longer used in battle. Charioteers stood throughout the race. They traditionally wore only a sleeved garment called a xystis, which would have offered at least some protection from crashes and dust. It fell to the ankles and was fastened high at the waist with a plain belt. Two straps that crossed high at the upper back prevented the xystis from "ballooning" during the race The body of the chariot rested on the axle, so the ride was bumpy. The most exciting parts of the chariot race, at least for the spectators, were the turns at the ends of the hippodrome. These turns were dangerous and sometimes deadly. In a full-sized racing stadium, the chariots could reach high speeds along the straights, then overturn or be crushed along with their horses and driver by the following chariots as they wheeled around the post. Driving into an opponent to make him crash was technically illegal, but most crashes were accidental and often unavoidable. In Homer's account of Patroclus' funeral games, Antilochus inflicts such a crash on Menelaus.

Pan-Hellenic festivals

Race winners were celebrated throughout the Greek festival circuit, both on their own account and on behalf of their cities. In the classical era, other great festivals emerged in Asia Minor, Magna Graecia, and the mainland, providing the opportunity for cities to compete for honour and renown, and for their athletes to gain fame and riches. Apart from the Olympics, the most notable were the Isthmian Games in Corinth, the Nemean Games, the Pythian Games in Delphi, and the Panathenaic Games in Athens, where the winner of the four-horse chariot race was awarded 140 amphorae of olive oil, a highly valued commodity. Prizes elsewhere included corn in Eleusis, bronze shields in Argos, and silver vessels in Marathon. Winning Greek athletes, no matter their social status, were greatly honoured by their own communities.  Chariot racing at the Panathenaic Games included a two-man event, the apobatai, in which one of the team was armoured, and periodically leapt off the moving chariot, ran alongside it, then leapt back on again. The second charioteer took the reins when the apobates jumped out; in the catalogues of winners, the names of both these athletes are given. Images of this contest show warriors, armed with helmets and shields, perched on the back of their racing chariots. Some scholars believe that the event preserved traditions of Homeric warfare.

Roman context

The Romans probably borrowed chariot technology and racing track design from the Etruscans, who in turn had borrowed them from the Greeks. Rome's public entertainments were also influenced directly by Greek examples. Chariot racing as a feature of Roman ludi is attested in Rome's foundation myths, and on 66 of the 177 days of religious festival games scheduled in a late Roman Calendar of 354. Races were held as part of triumphal processions, foundation anniversary rites and funeral games subsidised by magnates during the Regal and Republican eras, and by the emperors during the Imperial era.  According to Roman legend, Rome in its earliest days was faced with a lack of marriagable women. Romulus, the city's founder, invited the Sabine people to celebrate the Consualia, honouring the grain-god Consus with horse races and chariot races at the Circus Maximus. While the Sabines were enjoying the spectacle, Romulus and his men seized the Sabine women. The women eventually married their captors, and were instrumental in persuading Sabine and Romans to unite as one people. Chariot racing thus played a part in Rome's foundation myth and local politics.

Consuls were obliged to subsidise races at the beginning and end of their annual terms, as a sort of tax on their office and a gift to the people of Rome. Races on January 1st accompanied the renewal of loyalty vows; emperors gave annual games on the anniversary of their succession, and on their own and other Imperial birthdays.

Chariot races were preceded by a parade (pompa circensis) that featured the charioteers, music, costumed dancers, and gilded images of the gods, headed by Victoria, goddess of victory. These images were placed on dining couches, which were arranged on a viewing platform (pulvinar) to observe the races, which were nominally held in their honour. The sponsor or editor of the races shared the pulvinar with these divine images. In the Imperial era, the pulvinar in the Circus Maximus was directly connected to the imperial palace, on the Palatine Hill.

Several deities had permanent temples, shrines or images on the dividing barrier (spina or euripus) of the circus. While the entertainment value of chariot races tended to overshadow any sacred purpose, in late antiquity the Church Fathers still saw them as a traditional "pagan" practice, and advised Christians not to participate. Soon after the end of the Roman Empire in the West, the influential Christian scholar, administrator and historian Cassiodorus describes chariot racing as an instrument of the Devil.

Roman circuses

Most cities had at least one dedicated chariot racing circuit. The city of Rome had several; its main centre was the Circus Maximus which developed on the natural slopes and valley (the Vallis Murcia) between the Palatine Hill and Aventine Hill. It had a vast seating capacity; Boatwright estimates this as 150,000 before its rebuilding under Julius Caesar, and 250,000 under Trajan. According to Humphrey, the higher seating estimate is traditional but excessive, and even at its greatest capacity, the circus probably accommodated no more than about 150,000. It was Rome's earliest and greatest circus. Its basic form and footprint were thought more or less co-eval with the city's foundation, or with Rome's earliest Etruscan kings. Julius Caesar rebuilt it around 50 BC to a length  of about  and width of . It had a semi-circular end, and a semi-open, slightly angled end where the chariots lined up across the track to begin the race, each enclosed within a cell known as a carcere ("prison") behind a spring-loaded gate. These were functionally equivalent to the Greek hysplex but were further staggered to accommodate a median barrier, known originally as a euripus (canal) but much later as the spina (spine). When the chariots were ready the editor, usually a high-status magistrate, dropped a white cloth; all the gates sprang open at the same time, allowing a fair start for all participants. Races were run counter-clockwise; starting positions were allocated by lottery.

The spina carried lap-counters, in the form of eggs or dolphins; the eggs were suggestive of Castor and Pollux, the mythic dioscuri, one human and one divine. They were born from an egg, divine patrons of horsemen and the Equestrian order. Dolphins were thought to be the swiftest of all creatures; they symbolised Neptune, god of the sea, earthquakes and horses.

The spina bore water-feature elements, blended with decorative and architectural features. It eventually became very elaborate, with temples, statues and obelisks and other forms of art, though the addition of these multiple adornments obstructed the view of spectators on the trackside's lower seats, which were close to the action. At each end of the spina was a meta, or turning point, consisting of three large gilded columns.

Spectators
Seats in the Circus were free for the poor, and either free or subsidised for the mass of citizens (Plebs), whose lack of involvement in late Republican and Imperial politics was compensated, as far as Juvenal was concerned, by an endless supply of handouts and entertainments, or panem et circenses ("bread and circuses"). The seating nearest the track was reserved for senators, the rows behind them for equites and the remainder for everyone else. The better-off could pay for shaded seats with a better view. The Vestal virgins occupied their own privileged seating, close to the track. Men and women were supposed to occupy segregated seating but the "law of the place" allowed most to sit together, which for the Augustan poet Ovid presented opportunities for seduction. The circus was one of few places where the populace could assemble in vast numbers, and exercise the freedom of speech associated with theatre factions and claques, voicing support or criticism of their rulers and each other.

The races
The charioteers had to keep to their own lanes for the first two laps. Then they were free to jockey for position, cutting across the paths of their competitors, moving as close to the spina as they could, and whenever possible forcing their opponents to find another, much longer route forwards. Every team included a hortator, who rode horseback and signalled their faction's charioteers to help them navigate the dangers of the track. Roman drivers wrapped the reins round their waist, and steered using their body weight; with the reins looped around their torsos, they could lean from one side to the other to direct the horses' movement while keeping the hands free "for the whip and such".. A driver who became entangled in a crash risked being trampled or dragged along the track by his own horses; charioteers carried a curved knife (falx) to cut their reins, and wore helmets and other protective gear. Spectacular crashes in which the chariot was destroyed and the charioteer and horses were incapacitated were called naufragia, (a "shipwreck").

The best charioteers could earn a great deal of prize money, in addition to their contracted subsistence pay. The prize money for up to fourth place was advertised beforehand, with first place winning up to 60,000 sesterces. Detailed records were kept of drivers' performances, and the names, breeds and pedigrees of famous horses. Betting on results was widespread, among all classes. Most races involved four-horse chariots (quadrigae), or less often, two-horse chariots (bigae). Just to display the skill of the driver and his horses,  up to ten horses could be yoked to a single chariot. The quadriga races were the most important and frequent.

Frequency and laps
Magnates and emperors courted popularity by staging and subsidising as many races as they could, as often as possible. In Rome, races usually lasted 7 laps, or even 5, rather than the typical 12 laps of the Greek race. Some emperors were spendthrift enthusiasts; Caligula sponsored 10–12 races a day, Nero sponsored 20–24 a day. Commodus once held and subsidised 30 races in just 2 hours of a single afternoon; Dio Cassius predicted that such extravagance could only lead to Imperial bankruptcy. In a previous century, the emperor Domitian had managed to squeeze an extraordinary 100 races into a single afternoon, presumably by drastically lowering the number of laps from the standard 7. Twenty four races in a single day became the norm, until the slow collapse of Rome's economy in the West, when costs rose, sponsors were lost and racetracks were abandoned.In the 4th century AD, 24 races were held every day on 66 days each year. By the end of that century public entertainments in Italy had come to an end in all but a few towns. The Circus Maximus was still adequately maintained for use, though for what purposes is uncertain. The last known beast-hunt there was in 523.The last recorded race there was in 549 AD, staged by the Ostrogothic King, Totila; whether this was a display of horsemanship or a chariot-race is not known

Factions
Most Roman chariot drivers, and many of their supporters, belonged to one or another of four factions, social and business organisations that raised money to sponsor the races. The factions offered security to members in return for their loyalty and contribution, and were headed by a patron or patrons. Each faction employed a large staff to serve and support their charioteers. Every circus seems to have independently followed the same model of organisation, including the four-colour naming system; Red, White, Blue and Green. Senior managers (domini factionum) were usually of equestrian class. Investors were often as wealthy, but of lower social status; driving a racing chariot was thought a very low class occupation, beneath the dignity of any citizen, but making money from it was truly disgraceful, so investors of high social status usually resorted to negotiations discretely, through agents, rather than risk loss of reputation, status and privilege through infamia. No contemporary source describes these factions as official, but unlike many unofficial organisations in Rome, they were evidently tolerated as useful and effective rather than feared as secretive and potentially subversive.

Tertullian claims that there were originally just two factions, White and Red, sacred to winter and summer respectively. By his time, there were four factions; the Reds were dedicated to Mars, the Whites to the Zephyrus, the Greens to Mother Earth or spring, and the Blues to the sky and sea or autumn. Each faction could enter up to three chariots in a race. Members of the same faction often collaborated against the other entrants, for example to force them to crash into the spina (a legal and encouraged tactic). The driver's clothing was color-coded in accordance with his faction, which would help distant spectators to keep track of the race's progress.

The emperor Domitian created two new factions, the Purples and Golds, but they vanished from the record very soon after his death. The Blues and the Greens gradually became the most prestigious factions, supported by emperors and the populace alike. Blue versus Green clashes sometimes broke out during the races. The Reds and Whites are seldom mentioned in the literature, but their continued activity is documented in inscriptions and in curse tablets.

Roman charioteers
Charioteers occupied a peculiar position in Roman society. If originally citizens, their chosen career made infames of them, denying them many of the privileges, protections and dignities of full citizenship. Undertakers, prostitutes and pimps, butchers, executioners, and heralds were considered infamous, for various reasons; but although gladiators, actors, charioteers and any others who earned a living on stage, arena or racetrack were infames, the best of them could earn popular and elite support that verged on adoration, and near-fabulous wealth if not respectability. Juvenal bewailed that the earnings of the charioteer Lacerta were a hundred times more than a lawyer's fee. Emperors who took the reins as charioteer, or promoted drivers to elite status or freely mixed with arenarii - as did Caligula, Nero and Elagabalus, for example - were also notoriously "bad" rulers. Two jurists of the later Imperial era, and some modern scholars, argue against the legal status of charioteers as infames, on the grounds that athletic competitions were not mere entertainment but "seemed useful" as honourable displays of Roman strength and virtus.

Most Roman charioteers started their careers as slaves, who had neither reputation nor honour to lose. Of more than 200 dedications to named charioteers catalogued by Horsmann, more than half are of unknown social status. Of the remainder, 66 are slave, 14 are freedmen, 13 either slave or freedmen and only one a freeborn citizen.

All race competitors, regardless of their social status or whether they completed the race, were paid a driver's fee. Slave-charioteers could not lawfully own property, including money, but their masters could pay them regardless, or retain all or some accumulated driving fees and winnings on their behalf, as the price of their eventual manumission. While most freed slave-charioteers would have become clients of their former master, some would have earned more than enough to buy their freedom outright, assuming they survived that long. Scorpus won over 2,000 races before being killed in a collision at the meta when he was about 27 years old. The charioteer Florus' tomb inscription describes him as infans (not adult). Gaius Appuleius Diocles won 1,462 out of 4,257 races for various teams during his exceptionally long and lucky career. When he retired at the age of 42, his lifetime winnings reportedly totalled 35,863,120 sesterces (HS), not counting driver's fees. His personal share of this is unknown  but Vamplew calculates that even if Diocles' personal winnings were only a tenth part of the declared prize money, this would have yielded him an average annual income of 150,000 HS.

Most races and wins were team efforts, results of co-operation between charioteers of the same faction, but victories won in single races were the most highly esteemed by drivers and their public. Charioteers followed a ferociously competitive, charismatic profession, routinely risked violent death, and aroused a compulsive, even morbid reverence among their followers. A supporter of the Red faction is said to have thrown himself on the funeral pyre of his favourite charioteer. More usually, some charioteers and supporters tried to enlist supernatural help by covertly burying curse tablets at or near the track, appealing to spirits and deities of the underworld for the success of their favourites or disaster for their opponents; a common practise among Romans of all classes though like all magic, strictly illegal, and punishable by death.

Some of the most talented and successful charioteers were suspected of winning through the illicit agency of dark forces. Ammianus Marcellinus, writing during Valentinian's reign (AD 364–375) describes various cases of chariot drivers prosecuted for witchcraft or the procurement of spells. One charioteer was beheaded for having his young son trained in witchcraft to help him win his races; and another burnt at the stake for practising witchcraft.

Horses
The horses, too, could become celebrities; they were purpose-bred and were trained relatively late, from 5 years old. The Romans favoured particular native breeds from Hispania and north Africa. One of Diocles' horses, named Cotynus, raced with him in various teams 445 times, alongside Abigeius, a treasured "trace" horse. A chariot's "trace" horses partly pulled the chariot and partly guided it, as flankers to the central pair, who were yoked to the chariot and provided both speed and power. A left-side trace horse's steady performance could mean the difference between victory and disaster; mares were thought the steadiest.  Left-side trace horses were the closest to the spina, and are most likely to be named in the race record. Another key performer in a standard quadriga race was the right-hand yoke-horse. Celebrity horses named in Diocles' extraordinary record of 445 races and more than 100 wins in a year include Pompeianus, Lucidus and Galata.

Byzantine context
Constantine I (r. 306–337) refounded the eastern Greek city of Byzantium as a "New Rome", to serve as the administrative center of the eastern half of the Empire, and re-named it Constantinople. He replaced or restored the city's chariot-racing circuit (hippodrome), which had been provided by Septimius Severus. As a Christian emperor, or at least one with Christian leanings, Constantine supported and financed Constantinople's chariot racing infrastructure and overheads in preference to gladiatorial combat, which he considered a vestige of paganism. A perceived potential for spiritual damage through the witnessing of traditional public spectacles had been a matter of concern for Christian apologists since at least Tertullian's time.   The Olympic Games were eventually ended by Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395) in 393, perhaps in a move to supress paganism and promote Christianity. Gladiator contests were eventually abandoned, but chariot racing and theatrical entertainments remained popular. The Church did not, or perhaps could not prevent them, although prominent Christian writers attacked them.

Justinian I's reformed legal code specifically prohibits drivers from placing curses on their opponents, and invites their co-operation in bringing offenders before the authorities, rather than acting like assassins or vigilantes. This not only reiterates a very longstanding prohibition of witchcraft throughout the Empire but confirms a reputation that charioteers had for living at the very edge of the law, for violent thefts, blackmail and bullying as debt collectors on their masters' behalf, and an easy-going criminality that could extend to the murder of opponents and enemies, disguised as rough but rightful justice.

A sixth-seventh century Byzantine graffito in the Hagia Sophia shows a charioteer named Samonas, performing a victory lap. The graffito, no earlier than 537, includes an engraved cross to seek God's help for the charioteer. Samonas is otherwise unknown.
Several earlier Byzantine charioteers are known by name or race records, six of them through short, laudatory verse epigrams. Anastasius; Julianus of Tyre; Faustinus and his son Constantinus; Uranius; and Porphyrius. Among these, the single epigram to Anastasius offers very little personal information, but Porphyrius is the subject of thirty-four. He is described as the best charioteer of his time; and as the only charioteer known to have won the diversium twice in one day.

The diversium was unique to Byzantine chariot racing, a formal rematch between the winner and a loser, in which the competing charioteers drove each others team and chariot. A winning charioteer could thus win twice over, driving the same horse team that he had defeated earlier, virtually eliminating mere chance or better horses as the deciding factors in both victories. In Byzantine chariot racing, the expected standards of professional athleticsm were very high. Competitors were sometimes assigned to age categories, though very loosely; youths under approximately 17 (described as "beardless"), young men (17-20), and adult men over 20; but skill counted more than age, or stamina. In some circumstances, the charioteers themselves performed formal, ritualised mimes, or dances, which won them fame and adulation  Preparation for races could involve ritualised public dialogues between charioteers, imperial officials and emperors, a prescribed liturgy of questions, answers, and processional orders of precedence.

Byzantine racing factions
In the eastern provinces, and Constantinople itself, the earliest evidence for colour factions is from AD 315, coincident with the extension of Imperial authority into local government and public life. The cost of financing the races was split between the factions, the state, the Emperors, and senior officials. The annually appointed consuls were obliged to personally fund their own inaugural games.

Members of racing factions (known as demes), were a minority among chariot racing enthusiasts as a whole. In Byzantium as elsewhere, racing fans cheered on their favorite charioteers, and sought out the company of like-minded supporters. Charioteers could change their factional allegiance but their fans did not necessarily follow them. Semi-permanent alliances of Blues (Vénetoi) and Greens (Prásinoi) overshadowed the Whites (Leukoí) and Reds (Roúsioi). In the 5th century, the outstanding Byzantine charioteer Porphyrius raced as a "Blue" or a "Green" at various times and was celebrated by each faction, by the reigning Emperor, and as the subject of several imperially subsidised monuments on a grand scale in the Hippodrome. While the racing factions, their supporters and the populace at large were overwhelmingly composed of commoners, as in Rome, Cameron (1976) sees no justification for the description of any Byzantine racing faction, racing sponsor or factional ideology as "populist", nor the conflicts between factions and authorities as expressions of "class conflict" or religious squabling on a grand scale. The urban mass disturbances that characterise much of Byzantium's early history were not associated with racing factions until the 5th century, when the Imperial government appointed managers of both the Circus races and the Theatres, responsible for the production and performance of the chants, theatrical displays and lavish religious ceremonies that accompanied Imperial court rituals and chariot races. The acclamations of emperors and of winning charioteers employed much the same triumphalist language, symbolism, honours and pledges of allegiance. From around the mid-fifth century, the support and approval of the factions in confirming the legitimacy of emperors became a formal requirement. The factions were represented as loyal commoners, or "the people".

Social discontent and disturbances in Constantinople tended to focus on the Hippodrome, which was not only ideal for racing but by far the largest and most conveniently designed space for mass meetings and their containment. In 498, the crowd showed its dissatisfaction with the emperor Anastasius by launching a hail of stones at the kathisma; during a near-revolutionary riot of 512 at the Hippodrome, the same emperor feared for his life, and offered to abdicate; the crowd, apparently seeing this offer as both humble and magnanimous, found something like a "popular voice" and shifted their collective posture from opposition to support. Byzantium's theatre claques, which already had a reputation for well-organised violence, were now identified with the racing factions, and were thought to represent the rowdiest, most uncontrollable elements among the Blues and Greens. Blue–Green rivalry increasingly erupted into armed and lethal gang warfare. Justin I (r. 518–527) took severe, but apparently indiscriminate, misdirected and ultimately ineffective measures against urban violence after a citizen was murdered in the church of Hagia Sophia. Long-running factional disorder culminated in the Nika riots of 532 AD, against the backdrop of scheduled chariot races on the Ides of January, and factional "discontent" at political corruption and mismanagement. The Blues and Greens united and attempted but failed to overthrow the emperor; thousands were killed by the Byzantine military in retribution, including many ordinary citizens. The Byzantine historian Procopius saw the entire affair as a failure of the Emperor and his authorities to manage their Imperial troops and govern their people, and the almost complete lack of a dedicated police force.

Civil law reforms enacted by Justinian I in 541 ensured that only emperors or their representatives could subsidise the races; soon after, the emperor Tiberius II Constantine curbed imperial spending on the factions, which further reduced their power and influence. Chariot racing declined further in the course of the seventh century, in line with the Empire's dwindling economy and loss of territory. After the Nika riots, the factions had become less antagonistic to imperial authority as their importance and roles in imperial ceremony were increased. The iconoclast emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) deployed both Green and Blue "rowdies" in his anti-monastic campaigns, staging theatrical shows in which monks and nuns were exposed to public ridicule, abuse and forced marriages.  The number of races per race-day declined sharply to eight in the 10th century. The racing factions in Byzantium continued their activity, though much reduced, until the imperial court was moved to Blachernae during the 12th century.

See also
 Carriage driving
 Harness racing
 Oval track racing
 Spectacles in ancient Rome

Footnotes

References

Sources

Primary sources

 Pausanias. Description of Greece, Book 6: Elis II. English translation Perseus program.
 Pindar. Isthmian Odes – Isthmian 1. See original text in Perseus program.
 Pindar. Olympian Odes – Olympian 1. See original text in Perseus program.
 Pindar. Pythian Odes – Pythian 5. See original text in Perseus program.

 Tertullian. De Spectaculis. See original text in the Latin library.

Secondary sources

External links
 Chariot Races (United Nations of Roma Victrix (UNRV) History – Roman Empire)
 The Circus: Roman Chariot Racing (VRoma: A Virtual Community for Teaching and Learning Classics)
 Peter Donnelly – Some Observations on Roman Chariot-Racing
 Pasko Varnica – Sports In Antiquity

Ancient Olympic sports
Ancient Roman sports
Horse racing

Chariot racing


Xudoyberdi To'xtaboyev (17 December 1932 – 21 March 2021) was an Uzbek writer of children's stories.

Life and career
To'xtaboyev was born in the city of Fergana in 1932. After he finished primary and secondary school, he studied at the Department of Philology at the University of Central Asia from 1950 until 1955. He worked for a time as a newspaper journalist, including at Tashkent haqiqati (The Truth of Tashkent) and Qizil O'zbekiston (Red Uzbekistan), and he was the editor of the monthly magazine Guliston. From 1972 until 1977, he worked as chief editor at Yosh Gvardiya (Young Guard) publishing house, and as assistant to the chief editor at Shark Yulduzi (Western Star) newspaper. In those days, he also worked as chief of editing at Yosh Kuch (Young Strength) newspaper.

To'xtaboyev began his career as a children's writer in 1958. He created the collection of stories Shoshqoloq (Hasty) in 1962, followed by other collections: Yosh Gvardiya (Young Guard), Sir Ochildi (The Secret Revealed), and Sehrli Qolpoqcha (A Magic Hat) (1965). To'xtaboyev's writing was popular throughout Uzbekistan, and many children read his books as part of their school studies.

To'xtaboyev worked at the Kamalak publishing house as an editor, and then as lead editor. From 1960 until 1970, his most popular books were translated into other languages.

Works
To'xtaboyev is famous for his humorous novels. His books touch on themes including honesty in adults, love, loyalty, and kindness.
His stories include:  Sarik devni minib (Riding a Yellow Giant) (1969) and Sarik devning o'limi (Death of the Yellow Giant) (1973).  Other works include Besh Bolali Yigitcha (Parent of 5 Children), Qasoskorning oltin boshi (The Golden Head of the Avenger), Yillar and Yo'llar (Ways and Years) in 1983, and Sehrgarlar jangi (The Battle of Magicians). For his contribution to literature, To'xtaboyev won the Khamza Prize and "The National Writer of Uzbekistan" in 1991 when Uzbekistan gained its independence from the Soviet Union.

See also

Tohir Malik
Hamid Olimjon

References

External links
About his creativity
"The kingdom of rabbits" download

Uzbekistani male writers
Uzbekistani children's writers
1932 births
2021 deaths
20th-century Uzbekistani writers
20th-century male writers
People from Fergana

Xudoyberdi To'xtaboyev


The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct. The term synoptic (; ) comes via Latin from the Greek , synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis"; the sense of the word in English, the one specifically applied to these three gospels, of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect" is a modern one.

This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence. The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship—the synoptic problem—has been a topic of debate for centuries and has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time". While no conclusive solution has been found yet, the longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q.

Structure

Common features

Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to John: all are composed in Koine Greek, have a similar length, and were completed within a century of Jesus' death. They also differ from non-canonical sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in that they belong to the ancient genre of biography, collecting not only Jesus' teachings, but recounting in an orderly way his origins, his ministry, and his passion, and alleged miracles, and resurrection.

In content and in wording, though, the synoptics diverge widely from John but have a great deal in common with each other. Though each gospel includes some unique material, the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim. This common material is termed the triple tradition.

Triple tradition

The triple tradition, the material included by all three synoptic gospels, includes many stories and teachings:

The triple tradition's pericopae (passages) tend to be arranged in much the same order in all three gospels. This stands in contrast to the material found in only two of the gospels, which is much more variable in order.

The classification of text as belonging to the triple tradition (or for that matter, double tradition) is not always definitive, depending rather on the degree of similarity demanded. Matthew and Mark report the cursing of the fig tree, a single incident, despite some substantial differences of wording and content. In Luke, the only parable of the barren fig tree is in a different point of the narrative. Some would say that Luke has extensively adapted an element of the triple tradition, while others would regard it as a distinct pericope.

Example

An illustrative example of the three texts in parallel is the healing of the leper:

More than half the wording in this passage is identical. Each gospel includes words absent in the other two and omits something included by the other two.

Relation to Mark

The triple tradition itself constitutes a complete gospel quite similar to the shortest gospel, Mark.

Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, adds little to the triple tradition. Pericopae unique to Mark are scarce, notably two healings involving saliva and the naked runaway. Mark's additions within the triple tradition tend to be explanatory elaborations (e.g., "the stone was rolled back, ) or Aramaisms (e.g., "Talitha kum!"). The pericopae Mark shares with only Luke are also quite few: the Capernaum exorcism and departure from Capernaum, the strange exorcist, and the widow's mites. A greater number, but still not many, are shared with only Matthew, most notably the so-called "Great Omission" from Luke of .

Most scholars take these observations as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship. The hypothesis favored by most experts is Marcan priority, whereby Mark was composed first, and Matthew and Luke each used Mark,  incorporating much of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels. A leading alternative hypothesis is Marcan posteriority, with Mark having been formed primarily by extracting what Matthew and Luke shared in common.

Double tradition

 An extensive set of material—some two hundred verses, or roughly half the length of the triple tradition—are the pericopae shared between Matthew and Luke, but absent in Mark. This is termed the double tradition. Parables and other sayings predominate in the double tradition, but also included are narrative elements:

Unlike triple-tradition material, double-tradition material is structured differently in the two gospels. Matthew's lengthy Sermon on the Mount, for example, is paralleled by Luke's shorter Sermon on the Plain, with the remainder of its content scattered throughout Luke. This is consistent with the general pattern of Matthew collecting sayings into large blocks, while Luke does the opposite and intersperses them with narrative.

Besides the double tradition proper, Matthew and Luke often agree against Mark within the triple tradition to varying extents, sometimes including several additional verses, sometimes differing by a single word. These are termed the major and minor agreements (the distinction is imprecise). One example is in the passion narrative, where Mark has simply, "Prophesy!" while Matthew and Luke both add, "Who is it that struck you?"

The double tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the synoptic problem. The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work. If this is the case, they must have drawn from some common source, distinct from Mark, that provided the double-tradition material and overlapped with Mark's content where major agreements occur. This hypothetical document is termed Q, for the German Quelle, meaning "source".

Special Matthew and Special Luke

Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material found in no other gospel. These materials are sometimes called "Special Matthew" or M and "Special Luke" or L.

Both Special Matthew and Special Luke include distinct opening infancy narratives and post-resurrection conclusions (with Luke continuing the story in his second book Acts). In between, Special Matthew includes mostly parables, while Special Luke includes both parables and healings.

Special Luke is notable for containing a greater concentration of Semitisms than any other gospel material.

Luke gives some indication of how he composed his gospel in his prologue:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

Synoptic problem

The "synoptic problem" is the question of the specific literary relationship among the three synoptic gospels—that is, the question as to the source or sources upon which each synoptic gospel depended when it was written.

The texts of the three synoptic gospels often agree very closely in wording and order, both in quotations and in narration. Most scholars ascribe this to documentary dependence, direct or indirect, meaning the close agreements among synoptic gospels are due to one gospel's drawing from the text of another, or from some written source that another gospel also drew from.

Controversies
The synoptic problem hinges on several interrelated points of controversy:
 Priority: Which gospel was written first? (If one text draws from another, the source must have been composed first.)
 Successive dependence: Did each of the synoptic gospels draw from each of its predecessors? (If not, the frequent agreements between the two independent gospels against the third must originate elsewhere.)
 Lost written sources: Did any of the gospels draw from some earlier document which has not been preserved (e.g., the hypothetical "Q", or from earlier editions of other gospels)?
 Oral sources: To what extent did each evangelist or literary collaborator draw from personal knowledge, eyewitness accounts, liturgy, or other oral traditions to produce an original written account?
 Translation: Jesus and others quoted in the gospels spoke primarily in Aramaic, but the gospels themselves in their oldest available form are each written in Koine Greek. Who performed the translations, and at what point?
 Redaction: How and why did those who put the gospels into their final form expand, abridge, alter, or rearrange their sources?

Some theories try to explain the relation of the synoptic gospels to John; to non-canonical gospels such as Thomas, Peter, and Egerton; to the Didache; and to lost documents such as the Hebrew logia mentioned by Papias, the Jewish–Christian gospels, and the Gospel of Marcion.

History

Ancient sources virtually unanimously ascribe the synoptic gospels to the apostle Matthew, to Peter's interpreter Mark, and to Paul's companion Luke—hence their respective canonical names. The ancient authors, however, did not agree on which order the Gospels had been written. For example, Clement of Alexandria held that Matthew wrote first, Luke wrote second and Mark wrote third; on the other hand, Origen argued that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second and Luke wrote third; finally, Tertullian states that John and Matthew were published first and that Mark and Luke came later.

A remark by Augustine of Hippo at the beginning of the fifth century presents the gospels as composed in their canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), with each evangelist thoughtfully building upon and supplementing the work of his predecessors—the Augustinian hypothesis (Matthew–Mark).

This view (when any model of dependence was considered at all) seldom came into question until the late eighteenth century, when Johann Jakob Griesbach published in 1776 a synopsis of the synoptic gospels. Instead of harmonizing them, he displayed their texts side by side, making both similarities and divergences apparent. Griesbach, noticing the special place of Mark in the synopsis, hypothesized Marcan posteriority and advanced (as Henry Owen had a few years earlier) the two-gospel hypothesis (Matthew–Luke).

In the nineteenth century, researchers applied the tools of literary criticism to the synoptic problem in earnest, especially in German scholarship. Early work revolved around a hypothetical proto-gospel (Ur-Gospel), possibly in Aramaic, underlying the synoptics. From this line of inquiry, however, a consensus emerged that Mark itself served as the principal source for the other two gospels—Marcan priority.

In a theory first proposed by Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838, the double tradition was explained by Matthew and Luke independently using two sources—thus, the two-source (Mark–Q) theory—which supplemented Mark with another hypothetical source consisting mostly of sayings. This additional source was at first seen as the logia (sayings) spoken of by Papias and thus called "Λ", but later it became more generally known as "Q", from the German Quelle, meaning source. This two-source theory eventually won wide acceptance and was seldom questioned until the late twentieth century; most scholars simply took this new orthodoxy for granted and directed their efforts toward Q itself, and this is  largely the case.

The theory is also well known in a more elaborate form set forth by Burnett Hillman Streeter in 1924, which additionally hypothesized written sources "M" and "L" (for "Special Matthew" and "Special Luke" respectively)—hence the influential four-document hypothesis. This exemplifies the prevailing scholarship of the time,  which saw the canonical gospels as late products, dating from well into the second century, composed by unsophisticated cut-and-paste redactors out of a progression of written sources, and derived in turn from oral traditions and from folklore that had evolved in various communities. More recently, however, as this view has gradually fallen into disfavor, so too has the centrality of documentary interdependence and hypothetical documentary sources as an explanation for all aspects of the synoptic problem.

In recent decades, weaknesses of the two-source theory have been more widely recognized, and debate has reignited. Many have independently argued that Luke did make some use of Matthew after all. British scholars went further and dispensed with Q entirely, ascribing the double tradition to Luke's direct use of Matthew—the Farrer hypothesis of 1955. New attention is also being given to the Wilke hypothesis of 1838 which, like Farrer, dispenses with Q but ascribes the double tradition to Matthew's direct use of Luke.  Meanwhile, the Augustinian hypothesis has also made a comeback, especially in American scholarship. The Jerusalem school hypothesis has also attracted fresh advocates, as has the Independence hypothesis, which denies documentary relationships altogether.

On this collapse of consensus, Wenham observed: "I found myself in the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to confess that after twelve years' work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue."

More recently, Andris Abakuks applied a statistical time series approach to the Greek texts to determine the relative likelihood of these proposals. Models without Q fit reasonably well. Matthew and Luke were statistically dependent on their borrowings from Mark. This suggests at least one of Matthew and Luke had access to the other's work. The most likely synoptic gospel to be the last was Luke. The least likely was Mark. While this weighs against the Griesbach proposal and favors the Farrer, he does not claim any proposals are ruled out.

Conclusions
No definitive solution to the Synoptic Problem has been found yet. The two-source hypothesis, which was dominant throughout the 20th century, still enjoys the support of most New Testament scholars; however, it has come under substantial attack in recent years by a number of biblical scholars, who have attempted to relaunch the Augustinian hypothesis, the Griesbach hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis.

In particular, the existence of the Q source has received harsh criticism in the first two decades of the 21st century: scholars such as Mark Goodacre and Brant Pitre have pointed out that no manuscript of Q has ever been found, nor is any reference to Q ever made in the writings of the Church Fathers (or any ancient writings, in fact). This has prompted E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies to write that the Two-sources hypothesis, while still dominant, "is least satisfactory" and Joseph Fitzmyer to state that the Synoptic Problem is "practically insoluble".

Theories

Nearly every conceivable theory has been advanced as a solution to the synoptic problem. The most notable theories include:

See also

 Aramaic primacy
 Authorship of the Gospels
 Biblical criticism
 Gospel harmony
 List of Gospels
 List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels
 Source criticism

Notes

References

External links

 Catholic Encyclopedia: Synoptics
 Hypotyposeis: Synoptic Problem Website
 Synoptic Problem: Bibliography of the main studies in English
 TextExcavation: The Synoptic Project
 Synoptic Gospels Primer
 NT Gateway: Synoptic Problem Web Sites (archived 1 October 2019)
 The Synoptic Problem and its Solution (archived 20 October 2020)
 Matthew Conflator (Wilke) Hypothesis
 Synoptic Hypotheses and Authors (archived 5 September 2020)

Canonical Gospels
Christian terminology

Texts in Koine Greek
Biblical criticism

Synoptic Gospels


The Antonín Dvořák Theatre () is an opera house in Ostrava, Czech Republic, which opened in 1907. Since 1919 it has been one of two permanent venues of the National Moravian Silesian Theatre.

History

The Neo-baroque building of the theatre was designed by architect Alexander Graf. It was built by the Ostrava company Noe & Storch. The Antonín Dvořák Theatre was the first building in what is now the  Czech Republic to use reinforced concrete beams.

The interior was designed by sculptors of the company Johann Bock & Son . The sculptures decorating the facade were made by Eduard Smetana and Leopold Kosiga. Drama and Music, two reliefs in the main foyer of the theatre, were donated by academic sculptor Helena Scholzová (Helen Zelezny-Scholz).

The Antonín Dvořák Theatre was opened on 28 September 1907, as a German theatre. Up to 1919, the performances were solely in German. Following the World War I, the theatre passed to the hands of Czechoslovak state and became a stage of the National Moravian Silesian Theatre. From 1949, the theatre was renamed as the Zdeněk Nejedlý Theatre and in 1990 as the Antonín Dvořák Theatre.

External links

 TACE – entry in  TACE database

Theatres in Ostrava
Buildings and structures in Ostrava
Music venues in the Czech Republic
Theatres completed in 1918
Music venues completed in 1918
Theatre
1918 establishments in Czechoslovakia

Antonín Dvořák Theatre


Table setting (laying a table) or place setting refers to the way to set a table with tableware—such as eating utensils and for serving and eating. The arrangement for a single diner is called a place setting. It is also the layout in which the utensils and ornaments are positioned. The practice of dictating the precise arrangement of tableware has varied across cultures and historical periods.

Place setting
Informal settings generally have fewer utensils and dishes but use a layout based on more formal settings. Utensils are arranged in the order and according to the manner in which the diner will use them.  In the West, forks, plate, butter knife, and napkin generally are placed to the left of the dinner plate, and knives, spoons, stemware and tumblers, cups, and saucers to the right.  (By contrast, formal settings in Armenia place the fork to the right of the dinner plate and informal settings in Turkey place the fork to the right of the dinner plate if not accompanied by a knife)  Sauceboats and serving dishes, when used, either are placed on the table or, more formally, may be kept on a side table.

Informal

At an informal setting, fewer utensils are used and serving dishes are placed on the table. Sometimes the cup and saucer are placed on the right side of the spoon, about 30 cm or 12 inches from the edge of the table. Often, in less formal settings, the napkin should be in the wine glass.  However, such objects as napkin rings are very rare in the United Kingdom, Spain, Mexico, or Italy.

Formal

Utensils are placed inward about 20 cm or 8 inches from the edge of the table, with all placed either upon the same invisible baseline or upon the same invisible median line.  Utensils in the outermost position are to be used first (for example, a soup spoon or a salad fork, later the dinner fork and the dinner knife).  The blades of the knives are turned toward the plate.  Glasses are placed an inch (2.5 cm) or so above the knives, also in the order of use:  white wine, red wine, dessert wine, and water tumbler.

Formal dinner

The most formal dinner is served from the kitchen.  When the meal is served, in addition to the central plate (a service plate or dinner plate at supper; at luncheon, a service plate or luncheon plate) at each place there are a bread roll (generally on a bread plate, sometimes in the napkin), napkin, and flatware (knives and spoons to the right of the central plate, and forks to the left).  Coffee is served in Butler Service style in demitasses, and a spoon placed on the saucer to the right of each handle.  Serving dishes and utensils are not placed on the table for a formal dinner.  The only exception in the West to these general rules is the protocol followed at the Spanish royal court, which was also adopted by the Austrian court, in which all cutlery was placed to the right of the central plate for each diner.

At a less formal dinner, not served from the kitchen, the dessert fork and spoon can be set above the plate, fork pointing right, spoon pointing left.

Formal dining

See also
 Centrepiece
 Cutlery (US: Flatware)
 Haft-Sin, traditional table setting of Nowruz, the traditional Iranian spring celebration.
 List of glassware
 Napkin folding
 Silver service,  a method of table service in the United Kingdom
 Tableware

References

Further reading

Serving and dining
Etiquette

Table setting


Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (), also known as its short name Bank of China (Hong Kong) or BOCHK (), is a subsidiary of the Bank of China (via the Hong Kong-listed intermediate holding company BOC Hong Kong (Holdings)). Bank of China (Hong Kong) is the second-largest commercial banking group in Hong Kong in terms of assets and customer deposits (2008 data), with more than 190 branches across Hong Kong as of the end of 2019. It is also one of the three commercial banks licensed by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority to issue banknotes for the Hong Kong dollar.

BOCHK is legally separated from its parent, Bank of China (BOC), although they maintain close relations in management and administration and co-operate in several areas, including reselling BOC's insurance and securities services. BOCHK is also the biggest member and  the JETCO ATM and payment system, and the designated clearing bank in Hong Kong for transactions involving the Renminbi (RMB / CNH).

BOCHK was established on 1 October 2001 from a merger of 12 subsidiaries and associates of the Bank of China in Hong Kong, and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in October 2002
. As of the end of 2019, the bank had HKD3,026 billion in assets and an operating profit of HKD39.8 billion. Its head office is in the Bank of China Tower in Central, Hong Kong. The head office is shared with the Hong Kong units of its parent company; it was completed in 1988 and was the first building outside of North America to exceed 1,000 feet (300 m).

History

Bank of China Group

The opening of a branch of the Bank of China in Hong Kong in 1917 marked the entry of state-owned Chinese banks into the then-colony's banking sector. Other banks soon followed suit, starting with Yien Yieh Commercial Bank in 1918. By the time the People's Republic of China was established in 1949, there were 15 branches of state-owned Chinese banks in Hong Kong, plus branches of nine Mainland-incorporated banks that were public-private joint ventures. In addition, the Chinese government established Po Sang Bank in 1949 and Nanyang Commercial Bank in 1950. Both of these were incorporated in Hong Kong.

In 1952, the nine public-private banks (namely, Sin Hua Bank Limited, China & South Sea Bank, Kincheng Banking Corporation, China State Bank Limited, The National Commercial Bank Limited, Yien Yieh Commercial Bank, Young Brothers Banking Corporation, Wo Sang Bank and National Industrial Bank of China) were grouped into the Joint Office of Joint Public-Private Banks. The Hong Kong branches of the last three of these nine were closed in 1954 when their parents were shut down by the central government, and management of the remaining six public-private banks were transferred to the Hong Kong and Macau Regional Office of the Bank of China in 1958. The Bank of China later took over management of the Hong Kong branches of Kwangtung Provincial Bank, Hua Chiao Commercial Bank and the Bank of Communications (HKSE: 3328).

In June 1975, the Bank of China moved to increase the capital of the public-private banks. As all of the new capital was from the Chinese government, private ownership in the public-private banks was substantially reduced, in some cases to less than 1%.

The 14 banks were rebranded as part of the Bank of China Group in the 1980s, after a common IT platform was established. Treasury and foreign currency exchange operations were also centralised. However, the individual banks retained their own management. They are now the second-largest banking group in Hong Kong.

Restructuring and listing
The Hong Kong branch of the Bank of Communications broke off from the Bank of China Group in 1998. The Bank of China Group started to restructure its operations in 1999 in preparation for an initial public offering. All minority shareholders (except for those of Chiyu) were bought out by the Bank of China. Formal plans for a restructuring received the approval of the People's Bank of China and were launched in January 2001.

The restructuring saw all operations of the Mainland-incorporated group members merged into Po Sang Bank, which was then immediately renamed Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. Hong Kong incorporated Nanyang Commercial Bank and Chiyu Banking Corporation became subsidiaries of Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. Legislation was required for the merger, as Hong Kong does not allow mergers via the pooling of interests, a common procedure in the United States. The Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Ordinance was approved by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on 12 July 2001, and the merger was completed on 1 October 2001.

Corporate structure and BOC Hong Kong Holdings
Bank of China (Hong Kong) is a listed company of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong, via its parent company BOC Hong Kong (Holdings) Limited (BOCHK Holdings). The holding owned 100% shares of the bank.

Moreover, American depositary receipt of the shares of the holdings, were traded on OTC Market.

BOCHK Holdings is a constituent of the Hang Seng Index. The listing of BOCHK Holdings in July 2002 listing was the first international stock listing by a Mainland China bank; until that time, other Mainland Chinese bank listings were done in the domestic "A-share" market.

For the 12 months ended 31 December 2019, BOCHK Holdings earned HKD58.4 billion in operating income and HKD34.1 billion in net profit. As of the end of 2019, 65.65% of BOCHK Holdings is held by Bank of China Group, in turn 69.265% owned by Central Huijin Investment, an investment holding company 100% owned by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

Operations

BOCHK offers a comprehensive range of financial products and services to retail and corporate customers, similar to those offered by most commercial banks. It is primarily known for its interest-income business (taking deposits from retail customers for loans to corporates) although it has been moving into other non-interest-income areas such as personal loans, wealth management and other financial services in recent years. It has Hong Kong's biggest branch network including approximately 190 branches, 280
automated banking centres, over 1,000 automatic teller machines as of end 2019.

BOCHK is one of the key mortgage lenders in Hong Kong. The other key lenders include HSBC and Hang Seng Bank.

Within Mainland China, BOCHK operates 14 branches () separately from its parent. BOCHK is treated as a foreign bank, more properly, 境外銀行 (banks outside of the territory), for regulatory purposes as it is incorporated in Hong Kong. However, partly to clear up confusion between it and its parent in the mainland, it shifted all of its mainland-based business to Nanyang Commercial Bank in 2007.

Renminbi clearing bank

BOCHK has been the designated clearing bank for personal transactions involving the Renminbi (CNY, the currency of Mainland China) in Hong Kong since February 2004. This means that BOCHK acts as a settlement agent for RMB banknotes and funds in Hong Kong and an intermediary between banks in Hong Kong and the People's Bank of China, the central bank of the People's Republic of China. In return, BOCHK takes a 0.125% cut of all RMB deposits in Hong Kong that are repatriated back to Mainland China.

The chief executive of Hong Kong announced on 18 November 2003 that the People's Bank of China had agreed to provide clearing arrangements, marking for the first time that the Renminbi, which is fully on the current account but not on the capital account, has been allowed to clear outside of Mainland China. The scope of such RMB business includes deposit-taking, exchange, remittances and RMB cards. Hong Kong banks were invited to apply to become the designated clearing bank for RMB business; the People's Bank of China subsequently chose BOCHK as the clearing bank, for a term of three years.

According to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the major responsibilities of the clearing bank are to:
 open RMB settlement accounts for participating banks for the acceptance and withdrawal of RMB funds
 open a settlement account with the PBOC's Shenzhen sub-branch to centralise the acceptance and withdrawal of RMB funds of the Clearing Bank and the participating banks
 collect and distribute RMB banknotes
 provide clearing services for RMB remittances and RMB cards issued by Hong Kong banks
 provide services for the participating banks to square their RMB open positions that result from the exchange of RMB into Hong Kong dollars and vice versa.

Nanyang Commercial Bank

Founded in 1950 in Hong Kong, Nanyang Commercial Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOCHK, with 42 branches. Nanyang primarily focuses on corporate customers, in particular small and medium-sized trading and manufacturing companies. It also has a loyal following amongst the overseas Chinese community, especially in South East Asia. It relies on BOCHK for back-end office and IT support. In 2007, it took over all of BOCHK's mainland operations, corporate and individual.

Chiyu Banking Corporation

Founded by Tan Kah Kee, an overseas Chinese in 1947, Chiyu Banking Corporation Limited has 23 branches in Hong Kong and focuses on serving the community of residents of Fujian descent in Hong Kong.

Chiyu was explicitly created by Chen to create a sustainable business with profits to be devoted to education in Xiamen and the rest of Fujian province in China. Since its founding, it has spent more than HK$1 billion in education in the province, primarily through funding Jimei University and its related schools.

In 2017 BOC (HK) sold Chiyu Bank.

JETCO

JETCO () (Joint Electronic Teller Services Limited) is the biggest network of automatic teller machines in Hong Kong and Macau, with nearly 3,000 cash machines. JETCO was founded  along with the Bank of East Asia, Chekiang First Bank, Shanghai Commercial Bank and Wing Lung Bank, and at present covers  HSBC and Hang Seng Bank, which have their own system. JETCO's agreement with UnionPay has been terminated  leaving two choices for Hong Kong-based customers: get a UnionPay card, usable like any other on the mainland, or look for a Bank of East Asia ATM (Bank of East Asia has linked all of its mainland-based ATMs into the JETCO network) that can be used like any other JETCO ATM.

Other operations
BOCHK also owns a travel agency known as BOC Travel Services. This is a legacy from its acquisition of Nanyang Commercial Bank, which ran a travel agency for the convenience of its Southeast Asian customers.

Southeast Asia

Brunei
In 2016, BOCHK opened a branch in Brunei, becoming the first Chinese bank to establish itself in the country.

Malaysia, Thailand

Banknotes

Although not a central bank, BOCHK issues banknotes in Hong Kong. Under present arrangements, most Hong Kong dollar notes are not issued by a central bank or monetary authority, but by three specially licensed commercial banks, these being the Bank of China, HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank.

Bank of China started to issue Hong Kong dollar notes on 1 May 1994, under the name of "Bank of China Hong Kong Branch". Following the Bank's 2001 merger and restructuring, a new set of notes bearing the name "Bank of China (Hong Kong)" went into circulation in 2004. Under the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Ordinance, banknotes issued by the Bank of China prior to its merger remained legal tender and became the obligations of Bank of China (Hong Kong).

As one of the three note-issuing banks, BOCHK is also a rotating chairman of the Hong Kong Association of Banks, the main industry body of commercial banks in Hong Kong.

Bank of China Tower

The Bank of China Tower in Central houses the headquarters of Bank of China Hong Kong. Designed by Ieoh Ming Pei, the 70-storey building's height is 315 metres with two masts reaching 369 metres. Construction began in 1985 and the building was completed in 1989, with its official opening on 17 May 1990.

Bank of China Tower was the first building outside North America to break the  mark, the first composite space frame high-rise building and was the tallest building in Hong Kong and Asia from 1989 to 1992. A small observation deck on the 43rd floor of the building is open to the public; visits to the main observation deck on the 70th floor is by appointment only.

The structural expressionism adopted in the design of this building resembles growing bamboo shoots, symbolising livelihood and prosperity. While its distinctive look makes it one of Hong Kong's most identifiable landmarks today, it was the source of some controversy at one time, as the bank is the only major building in Hong Kong to have bypassed the convention of consulting with feng shui masters on matters of design prior to construction.

Corporate governance

One of the stated goals of the restructuring of BOCHK was to aggressively improve corporate governance and risk management. Issues regarding BOCHK's corporate governance were widely reported in 2003 and 2004 following allegations of misconduct. Investigations are continuing . BOCHK subsequently reorganised and tightened internal controls, and made several executive appointments via a global replacement effort.

Liu Jinbao
A former CEO of BOCHK, Liu Jinbao, was abruptly transferred back to Beijing to become vice-chairman of Bank of China in May 2003. Investigations subsequently found Liu to have "committed economic crimes" in connection with his previous appointment as the head of the Shanghai branch of the Bank of China. Liu was subsequently dismissed from his post. Liu, along with three other senior managers, were also alleged to have made "unauthorised distribution for personal purposes" of funds belonging to the Bank of China before BOCHK was established. The Standard speculated that the amount involved was HK$30 million.

New Nongkai loan
A special committee appointed by BOC (Hong Kong) Holdings in consultation with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority found that the granting of a HK$1.77 billion bridge loan to Chau Ching-ngai (sometimes referred to as Zhou Zhengyi depending on transliteration), involved risks identified at the start (that) were not addressed adequately and was granted despite serious reservations expressed by the Risk Management Department (BOCHK). Liu Jinbao was criticised by the committee and a deputy CEO, Or Man-ah, took early retirement as a result.

See also

 List of banks in Hong Kong
 Bank of China (Hong Kong) Bauhinia Bowl
 Macanese pataca

References

General

 Feng, Bangyan; (2002). A Century of Hong Kong Financial Development. Joint Publishing Hong Kong. .
 BOCHK 2003 Annual Report. March 2004.
 BOC (Hong Kong) Holdings IPO Prospectus. August 2002.

Inline

Corporate governance

 Chung, O. Liu probe began in 2000: magazine. The Standard. 10 March 2004.
 Suspect loans' at Shanghai firm. BBC News report, 10 June 2003. Retrieved 16 February 2005.
 Batchelor, M. BOC Hong Kong hires 3 executives Bloomberg via International Herald Tribune. 4 January 2005.
 Bank executives arrested over $30m fraud scandal, The Standard. 20 August 2004.
 Xinhua News Agency, Investigation not affecting BOCHK operating results: statement. Via People's Daily. 6 August 2004.
 Suspension from duty of Messrs Zhu Chi and Ding Yansheng, Deputy Chief Executives of the Company. BOCHK announcement and press release, 2 August 2004.
 Investigation of Liu Jinbao and Zhang Debao. BOCHK announcement and press release, 5 August 2004.
 Ling, H. Top Bankers Brought Down by NPLs. Caijing, 5 March 2004.
 BOC vice-chairman sacked for suspected corruption. People's Daily. 20 February 2004.

Renminbi business

 Hong Kong Monetary Authority press release, Hong Kong banks to conduct personal renminbi business on trial basis.  18 November 2003.
 Hong Kong Monetary Authority, HKMA Annual Report 2003.
 Hong Kong Monetary Authority press release, The People's Bank of China Appoints Clearing Bank for RMB Business in Hong Kong. 24 December 2003.
 Xinhua News Agency,  Officials hail arrangements for conducting RMB business in HK. Via China Daily, 18 November 2003.

External links

 Reuters Quote, Bloomberg Quote for BOC Hong Kong (Holdings) Limited.
 Banknotes issued by the Bank of China (Hong Kong)
 Banknotes issued by the Bank of China (Macau)

Banks of Hong Kong
Bank of China
Banknote issuers of Hong Kong
Banks established in 2001
2001 establishments in Hong Kong
Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange

Bank of China (Hong Kong)


Harry William Arthurs  (born May 9, 1935) is a Canadian lawyer, academic, and academic administrator. He is one of Canada's leading labour law scholars.

Early life and education
Born in Toronto, Ontario, he attended the Oakwood Collegiate Institute. Dorothy Dworkin is his grandmother. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1955 and a Bachelor of Law degree in 1958 from the University of Toronto.  He received a Master of Law in 1959 from the Harvard Law School. He was called to the  Ontario Bar in 1961.

Career
In 1961, he joined the faculty of the Osgoode Hall Law School as an Assistant Professor. In 1964, he was made an Associate Professor and a Professor in 1968. From 1968 to 1970 he was the Associate Dean and from 1972 to 1977, he was the Dean. From 1985 to 1992, he was the President of York University. In 1995, he was appointed University Professor of Law and Political Science.

In 2004, he was appointed Commissioner leading the review of federal Labour Standards, Part III of the Canada Labour Code,  in 2006 as Chair of the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions, and in 2010 as Chair of the Funding Review of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

He is the author of Without the Law: Administrative Justice and Legal Pluralism in Nineteenth Century England, published in 1985.

Honours
 In 1982, he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
 In 1988, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada as "one of Canada's leading labour law scholars" who "has distinguished himself in many aspects of public life".
 In 1995, he was awarded the Order of Ontario.
 In 2002, he was awarded the Canada Council's Killam Prize, "Canada's most distinguished annual award for outstanding career achievement in social sciences, humanities, engineering, natural sciences and health sciences".
 In 2003, he was elected a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, given to scholars who are outside the United Kingdom who have "attained high international standing in any of the branches of study which it is the object of the Academy to promote".
 In 2003, he was awarded the first University of Toronto's Bora Laskin Award recognizing distinguished contributions to Canadian labour law.
 In 2008, he was awarded the ILO Decent Work Research Prize, jointly with Joseph Stiglitz
 In 2013, he was awarded the first Labour Law Research Network Award for Distinguished Contributions to Labour Law.
 He has received honorary degrees from Sherbrooke University, Brock University, The Law Society of Upper Canada, McGill University, University of Montreal, University of Toronto, University of Lethbridge,  University of Windsor, Simon Fraser University and York University.

References

External links
 Osgoode Hall Law School Faculty page

1935 births
Living people
Canadian legal scholars
Canadian university and college faculty deans
Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada
Harvard Law School alumni
Members of the Order of Ontario
Officers of the Order of Canada
People from Toronto
Presidents of York University
University of Toronto alumni
Academic staff of York University
Corresponding Fellows of the British Academy

Harry Arthurs


Northampton College is a further education college in Northampton, England, which opened in 1973, following building work which started in 1970.

The college's main campus is at Booth Lane which provides almost all courses offered, and later expanded to include its Daventry campus after merging with Daventry Tertiary College in August 2004, and its Lower Mounts campus after its facility in the town centre was extended in 2010. The Booth Lane campus has just undergone a massive redevelopment, reopening for study in 2012.

The college is one of the largest further education colleges in the South Midlands, with around 7,000 full-time and part-time students.

History

Booth Lane
Towards the end of the 1960s, the Northampton Borough Council Education Committee and Chief Education Officer, MJ Henley MA, identified the need for a new further education college in Northampton to complement the existing College of Technology and School of Art (now part of the Avenue campus of University of Northampton). The need arose from continuing pressure on the accommodation available at those establishments and the anticipated expansion of the population over the period 1971 to 1981.

The first phase of the building project began at the Booth Lane site in November 1970, completed in time to welcome new students in September 1972. The college was officially opened on 18 May 1973 by Lord Belstead, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. The second phase was completed in time for September 1974. Northampton College grew and saw the construction of other buildings to its complex at Booth Lane over the next few decades.

The Booth Lane site was completely re-developed between 2009 and 2012 following an £85m capital investment. The re-development was officially opened on 20 March 2012 by The Duke of York. The building now contains a library, study areas, computer suites, a professional theatre, underground sound recording booths and performance space, automotive spray booths, engineering studios, dance studios, photographic laboratories, TV and radio studios and a restaurant, which is open to the public.

Lower Mounts
The Lower Mounts site in Northampton town centre was officially opened on 6 July 2011, by Skills Minister John Hayes MP. This is the home of the College's hairdressing and beauty therapy programmes including The Salon NC which is open to the public, plus courses for adults including English for Speakers of Other Languages and help with basic skills in English, Maths and IT.

Daventry Campus
In addition, the college has a site at Badby Road West in Daventry where it provides a range of full-time and part-time courses for young people and adults.

Partnerships
The college is part of the Northamptonshire Federation of Colleges and works closely with other education providers including Moulton College, the University of Northampton and Tresham College, and a number of secondary schools. Partnerships have also been established with the South East Midlands Enterprise Partnership, Northamptonshire County Council, the Northamptonshire Chamber of Commerce and other bodies to provide targeted initiatives for local needs.

References

External links
 The Northampton College website
 Northampton College mini tour

Further education colleges in Northamptonshire
Education in West Northamptonshire District
1973 establishments in England
Educational institutions established in 1973

Northampton College


The karkm is a type of bagpipe played by the "Turkmen" nomads of Turkey (presumably those now known as Yörük), at least in the late 18th and early 19th century. The name is believed derived from the word for "lance reed", a material also used to make bagpipes in Hatay (modern Turkey).  The scholar Yalgin noted that the Turkmen believe it was they who introduced the bagpipe to the Arabs.

References

Turkish musical instruments
Bagpipes

Karkm