Gran Colombia (, "Great Colombia"), or Greater Colombia, officially the Republic of Colombia (Spanish: República de Colombia), was a state that encompassed much of northern South America and part of southern Central America from 1819 to 1831. It included present-day Colombia, mainland Ecuador (i.e. excluding the Galápagos Islands), Panama, and Venezuela, along with parts of northern Peru, northwestern Brazil, and Guyana. The terms Gran Colombia and Greater Colombia are used historiographically to distinguish it from the current Republic of Colombia, which is also the official name of the former state.

However, international recognition of the legitimacy of the Gran Colombian state ran afoul of European opposition to the independence of states in the Americas. Austria, France, and Russia only recognized independence in the Americas if the new states accepted monarchs from European dynasties. In addition, Colombia and the international powers disagreed over the extension of the Colombian territory and its boundaries.

Gran Colombia was proclaimed through the Fundamental Law of the Republic of Colombia, issued during the Congress of Angostura (1819), but did not come into being until the Congress of Cúcuta (1821) promulgated the Constitution of Cúcuta.

Gran Colombia was constituted as a unitary centralist state. Its existence was marked by a struggle between those who supported a centralized government with a strong presidency and those who supported a decentralized, federal form of government. At the same time, another political division emerged between those who supported the Constitution of Cúcuta and two groups who sought to do away with the Constitution, either in favor of breaking up the country into smaller republics or maintaining the union but creating an even stronger presidency. The faction that favored constitutional rule coalesced around Vice-President Francisco de Paula Santander, while those who supported the creation of a stronger presidency were led by President Simón Bolívar. The two of them had been allies in the war against Spanish rule, but by 1825, their differences had become public and were an important part of the political instability from that year onward.

Gran Colombia was dissolved in 1831 due to the political differences that existed between supporters of federalism and centralism, as well as regional tensions among the peoples that made up the republic. It broke into the successor states of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela; Panama was separated from Colombia in 1903. Since Gran Colombia's territory corresponded more or less to the original jurisdiction of the former Viceroyalty of New Granada, it also claimed the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua, the Mosquito Coast, as well as most of Esequiba.

Etymology
The official name of the country at the time was the Republic of Colombia. Historians have adopted the term "Gran Colombia" to distinguish this republic from the present-day Republic of Colombia, which began using the name in 1863, although many use Colombia where the confusion would not arise.

The name "Colombia" comes from the Spanish version of the eighteenth-century Neo-Latin word "Columbia", itself based on the name of Christopher Columbus. It was the term preferred by the Venezuelan revolutionary Francisco de Miranda as a reference to the New World, especially to all American territories and colonies under Spanish rule. He used an improvised, quasi-Greek adjectival version of the name, "Colombia", to mean papers and things "relating to Colombia", as the title of the archive of his revolutionary activities.

Simón Bolívar and other Spanish American revolutionaries also used the word "Colombia" in the continental sense. The establishment in 1819 of a country with the name "Colombia" by the Congress of Angostura gave the term a specific geographic and political reference.

Geography
The Republic of Colombia comprised more or less the former territories of the Viceroyalty of New Granada (1739–1777), which it claimed under the legal principle of uti possidetis. It united the territories of the former Third Republic of Venezuela, the United Provinces of New Granada, the former Royal Audiencia of Panama and the Presidency of Quito (which was still under Spanish rule in 1821).

Government
Before a new constitution could be written by the Congress of Cúcuta, the Congress of Angostura appointed Bolívar and Santander president and vice president, respectively. Under the Constitution of Cúcuta, the country was divided into twelve departments each governed by an intendant. Departments were further divided into thirty-six provinces, each headed by a governor, who had overlapping powers with the intendant. Military affairs at the department level were overseen by a commandant general, who could also be the intendant. All three offices were appointed by the central government. The central government, which temporarily was to reside in Bogotá, consisted of a presidency, a bicameral congress and a high court (the Alta Corte).

The president was the head of the executive branch of both the central and local governments. The president could be granted extraordinary powers in military fronts, such as the area that became Ecuador. The vice-president assumed the presidency in case of the absence, death, demotion, or illness of the president. Since President Bolívar was absent from Gran Colombia for the early years of its existence, executive power was wielded by the vice president, Santander. The vote was given to persons who owned 100 pesos in landed property or had an equivalent income from a profession. Elections were indirect.

History

Since the new country was quickly proclaimed after Bolívar's unexpected victory in New Granada, its government was temporarily set up as a federal republic, made up of three departments headed by a vice-president and with capitals in the cities of Bogotá (Cundinamarca Department), Caracas (Venezuela Department), and Quito (Quito Department). In that year, none of the provinces of Quito, nor many in Venezuela and New Granada, were free yet.

The Constitution of Cúcuta was drafted in 1821 at the Congress of Cúcuta, establishing the republic's capital in Bogotá. Bolívar and Santander were elected as the country's president and vice-president. A great degree of centralization was established by the assembly at Cúcuta, since several New Granadan and Venezuelan deputies of the Congress who formerly had been ardent federalists now came to believe that centralism was necessary in order to successfully manage the war against the royalists. To break up regionalist tendencies and to set up efficient central control of local administration, a new territorial division was implemented in 1824. The departments of Venezuela, Cundinamarca and Quito were split into smaller departments, each governed by an intendant appointed by the central government, with the same powers that Bourbon intendants had. Realizing that not all of the provinces were represented at Cúcuta because many areas of the country remained in royalist hands, the congress called for a new constitutional convention to meet in ten years.

In its first years, Gran Colombia helped other provinces still at war with Spain to become independent: all of Venezuela except Puerto Cabello was liberated at the Battle of Carabobo, Panama joined the federation in November 1821, and the provinces of Pasto, Guayaquil and Quito in 1822. That year Colombia became the first Spanish American republic recognized by the United States, due to the efforts of diplomat Manuel Torres. The Gran Colombian army later consolidated the independence of Peru in 1824.

Bolívar and Santander were re-elected in 1826.

Federalists and separatists

As the war against Spain came to an end in the mid-1820s, federalist and regionalist sentiments that had been suppressed for the sake of the war arose once again. There were calls for a modification of the political division, and related economic and commercial disputes between regions reappeared. Ecuador had important economic and political grievances. Since the end of the eighteenth century, its textile industry had suffered because cheaper textiles were being imported. After independence, Gran Colombia adopted a low-tariff policy, which benefited agricultural regions such as Venezuela. Moreover, from 1820 to 1825, the area was ruled directly by Bolívar because of the extraordinary powers granted to him. His top priority was the war in Peru against the royalists, not solving Ecuador's economic problems.

Having been incorporated later into Gran Colombia, Ecuador was also underrepresented in all branches of the central government, and Ecuadorians had little opportunity to rise to command positions in the Gran Colombian army. Even local political offices were often staffed by Venezuelans and New Granadans. No outright separatist movement emerged in Ecuador, but these problems were never resolved in the ten-year existence of the country. The strongest calls for a federal arrangement instead came from Venezuela, where there was strong federalist sentiment among the region's liberals, many of whom had not fought in the war of independence but had supported Spanish liberalism in the previous decade and who now allied themselves with the conservative Commandant General of the Department of Venezuela, José Antonio Páez, against the central government.

In 1826, Venezuela came close to seceding from Gran Colombia. That year, Congress began impeachment proceedings against Páez, who resigned his post on April 28 but reassumed it two days later in defiance of the central government. Support for Páez and his revolt—which came to be known as the Cosiata (a Venezuelan colloquialism of the time meaning "the insignificant thing") in Venezuelan history—spread throughout Venezuela, aided by the fact that it did not explicitly stand for anything, except defiance to the central government. Nevertheless, the support Páez received from across the Venezuelan political spectrum posed a serious threat to the unity of the country. In July and August, the municipal government of Guayaquil and a junta in Quito issued declarations of support for Páez's actions. Bolívar, for his part, used the developments to promote the conservative constitution he had just written for Bolivia, which found support among conservative Ecuadorians and the Venezuelan military officialdom, but was generally met with indifference or outright hostility among other sectors of society and, most importantly for future political developments, by Vice-President Santander himself.

In November two assemblies met in Venezuela to discuss the future of the region, but no formal independence was declared at either. That same month, skirmishes broke out between the supporters of Páez and Bolívar in the east and south of Venezuela. By the end of the year, Bolívar was in Maracaibo preparing to march into Venezuela with an army, if necessary. Ultimately, political compromises prevented this. In January, Bolívar offered the rebellious Venezuelans a general amnesty and the promise to convene a new constituent assembly before the ten-year period established by the Constitution of Cúcuta, and Páez backed down and recognized Bolívar's authority. The reforms, however, never fully satisfied the different political factions in Gran Colombia, and no permanent consolidation was achieved. The instability of the state's structure was now apparent to all.

In 1828, the new constituent assembly, the Convention of Ocaña, began its sessions. At its opening, Bolívar again proposed a new constitution based on the Bolivian one, but this suggestion continued to be unpopular. The convention fell apart when pro-Bolívar delegates walked out rather than sign a federalist constitution. After this failure, Bolívar believed that by centralizing his constitutional powers he could prevent the separatists (the New Granadians represented mainly by Francisco de Paula Santander and José María Obando, and the Venezuelans by José Antonio Páez) from bringing down the union. He ultimately failed to do so. As the collapse of the country became evident in 1830, Bolívar resigned from the presidency. Internal political strife between the different regions intensified even as General Rafael Urdaneta temporarily took power in Bogotá, attempting to use his authority to ostensibly restore order, but actually hoping to convince Bolívar to return to the presidency and the country to accept him. The federation finally dissolved in the closing months of 1830 and was formally abolished in 1831. Venezuela, Ecuador and New Granada came to exist as independent states.

War with Peru

Aftermath
The dissolution of Gran Colombia represented the failure of Bolívar's vision. The former republic was replaced by the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and New Granada. The former Department of Cundinamarca (as established in 1819 at the Congress of Angostura) became a new country, the Republic of New Granada. In 1858, New Granada was replaced by the Granadine Confederation. Later in 1863, the Granadine Confederation changed its name officially to the United States of Colombia, and in 1886, adopted its present-day name: the Republic of Colombia. Panama, which voluntarily became part of Gran Colombia in 1821, remained a department of the Republic of Colombia until 1903, when in great part as a consequence of the Thousand Days War of 1899–1902, it became independent under intense American pressure. The United States wanted territorial rights in the future Panama Canal Zone, which Colombia had refused.

With the exception of Panama (which, as mentioned, achieved independence seven decades later), the countries that were created have similar flags, reminiscent of the flag of Gran Colombia:

Confederation status
In Peru, the dissolution of Gran Colombia is seen as a country ceasing to exist, giving way to the formation of new nation-states. The significance of this view is that the treaties Peru had signed with Gran Colombia became void when the countersignatory ceased to exist. The three new states, the Republic of New Granada (which later changed its name to Republic of Colombia), the Republic of Venezuela, and the Republic of Ecuador, in the Peruvian view, started with a clean diplomatic slate.

An alternative view is that Ecuador and Venezuela separated from the Gran Colombian Federation and inherited all of the treaty obligations that Gran Colombia had assumed, at least to the extent that they apply to their respective territories. There are indications that Colombia itself maintained this position; Gran Colombia and its successor state, the Republic of Colombia, shared a capital city, a subset of the same territory, and much the same citizenry. It would be unnatural to disavow their common histories.

The question of the status of treaties and accords dating to the revolutionary period (1809–1819) and Gran Colombia period (1819–1830) has a profound effect on international relations to the present day.

Reunification
There have been attempts at the reunification of Gran Colombia since the separation of Panama from Colombia in 1903. People in favor of reunification are called "unionistas" or unionists. In 2008, the Bolivarian News Agency reported that then-President of Venezuela Hugo Chávez announced a proposal for a political restoration of Gran Colombia, under the Bolivarian Revolution.

See also
Federal Republic of Central America – another post-independence state on the American continent that underwent a similar fate, made up of modern Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Costa Rica.
Flag of Gran Colombia
Peru–Bolivian Confederation
Reunification of Gran Colombia

References

Bibliography

External links
"Gran Colombia," Flags of The World

Pan-Americanism
Former countries in South America
Former countries in Central America
Former republics
Spanish American wars of independence
Colombia
States and territories established in 1821
States and territories disestablished in 1831
1819 establishments in South America
1821 establishments in South America
1831 disestablishments in South America
History of Colombia
History of Venezuela
History of Ecuador
History of Panama
Congress of Angostura

Gran Colombia


A peer group is a group of people who are equal in some way.  Those in a peer group have the same status and are about the same age.  They often interact with the group as a whole. Members of a peer group often have similar interests and backgrounds.

Developmental psychology
Developmental psychologists, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and Harry Stack Sullivan, argued that peer relationships are important in a person's development, and teach about equality, reciprocity, cooperation, and intimacy.  Modern research also shows that social and emotional gains are indeed provided by peer interaction.

Judith Rich Harris, in The Nurture Assumption, argues that an individual's peer group significantly influences their intellectual and personal development.  Several long-term studies also claim that peer groups improve school work.

Related pages
Peer pressure

References

Sociology

Peer group


Mary Grant (1831–1908) was one of the most eminent female sculptors of 19th century Britain, with numerous commissions from the rich and famous.

Life

Grant was born in 1831 in Kilgraston House in Perthshire, into a very well-connected family. Her grandfather was Lord Elgin of Elgin Marbles fame. Her aunt and uncle were Mary Anne Grant and Sir Francis Grant, both artists, the latter being President of the Royal Academy. Another uncle was General James Hope Grant, a British military hero. These artistic and aristocratic  connections would serve her well in the otherwise notoriously male preserve of figurative sculpture.

She took up sculpting in her twenties, and went to Florence to study under Odoardo Fantacchiotti and then went to Rome to study under John Gibson, both highly skilled figurative sculptors. After a period in Paris studying with  she then set up studio in London, working under the guidance of John Henry Foley.

From 1864 to 1877 she returned to Kilgraston House, and worked from there.

In 1877 she moved to Ebenezer House on Albany Street, London and in 1889 to 29 Tite Street, London, then becoming the immediate neighbour of John Singer Sargent and Ernest Ibbetson. She worked much in cast plaster, using Fernando Meacci to aid in the process.

She exhibited her work at the Woman's Building at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois.

She never married. She died on 20 February 1908 in London.

Principal works
Queen Victoria for the Rajah of Kapurthala.
Memorial fountain to Henry Fawcett, a campaigner for Women's Suffrage, on the Victoria Embankment in London
Figures surrounding the main doorway of Lichfield Cathedral.
Bust of Charles Stewart Parnell
Bust of Lord Alfred Tennyson
Bust of Sir Francis Grant, her uncle
Bust of Lady Augusta Stanley, Lady in Waiting to Queen Victoria and her aunt
Relief portrait head of Henry Erskine
Memorial to Augusta Bruce in the New Abbey Church, Dunfermline
Reredos panel at altar in St Mary's Episcopal Cathedral, Edinburgh (designed by John Oldrid Scott, sculpted by Mary Grant)
Reredos in a church in Kilburn, London.
Sculpted figures on screen in Winchester Cathedral

References

External links

1831 births
1908 deaths
20th-century Scottish sculptors
19th-century Scottish sculptors
19th-century Scottish women artists
20th-century Scottish women artists
People from Perthshire
Scottish women sculptors

Mary Grant (sculptor)


Greenland is a play by the British playwrights Moira Buffini, Penelope Skinner, Matt Charman and Jack Thorne on global warming and its effects, named after the island of Greenland. It premiered at the Lyttelton auditorium of the Royal National Theatre in London from 27 January to 2 April 2011, directed by Bijan Sheibani and with a cast including Lyndsey Marshal.

The play is not to be confused with the 1988 play of the same name by Howard Brenton.

References

2011 plays
Climate change plays
Plays by Moira Buffini
Collaborative plays

Greenland (2011 play)


The amniotic sac  holds a fetus while it is developing during pregnancy.  The amniotic sac is filled with amniotic fluid, which protects the fetus.

Development
The amniotic sac starts to form and fill with amniotic fluid just days after a woman gets pregnant.  At first, the amniotic fluid is made from the mother's plasma (the liquid part of her blood).

At first, the amniotic fluid is made mostly of water with electrolytes (salts).  However, by the 12th to the 14th week of pregnancy, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, phospholipids, and urea are all in the amniotic fluid.  These things help the fetus grow.

As the fetus gets bigger, more amniotic fluid gets created.  By the time the baby is born, there is about one liter of amniotic fluid in the amniotic sac.

Purpose

The amniotic fluid
The amniotic fluid is very important in protecting the fetus and helping the fetus grow:
 It acts like a cushion, so the fetus does not hit the side of the mother's abdomen
 It lets the fetus float and move around, which helps the muscles and bones grow
 It keeps the fetus warm
 It contains nutrients that help the fetus grow

After the fetus is about four months old, when the kidneys start to work, the amniotic fluid serves another important purpose.  The fetus swallows amniotic fluid.  This fluid passes through the fetus's digestive system and urinary system and gets urinated out into the amniotic fluid.  This helps the fetus "practice" swallowing, digesting, and urinating before being born.

The amniotic sac

The amniotic sac has two layers, which have two different jobs.  The inside layer holds in the fetus and the amniotic fluid.  The outside layer attaches to the umbilical cord, so that blood and oxygen from the mother can get through the amniotic sac and to the fetus.

Testing

A sample of amniotic fluid can show whether a fetus has certain genetic disorders or infections.  A test called an amniocentesis can take a sample of amniotic fluid with a needle and study it for problems.

Birth
When a woman starts to give birth, the amniotic sac should break and the amniotic fluid will leak out the woman's vagina.  This is often called the time when a woman's "water breaks."  Doctors call it "rupture of membranes."

Once the baby is born, the amniotic sac is pushed out of the woman's vagina in the afterbirth, along with the placenta.

References

Anatomy of the female reproductive system
Biological reproduction

Amniotic sac


Artur Wojciech Zawisza (, born 30 March 1969) is a Polish politician. He is a member of the Libertas Poland party, of which he is the vice-president.

He was born in Lublin, Poland, and graduated in literature and philosophy from the Catholic University of Lublin. In the 1980s he was a member of the underground anti-communist Catholic Scouting Organization "Zawisza" . After finishing his studies he assisted Marek Jurek, a Member of the National Broadcasting Council. In 1997 he was editor-in-chief of a nationwide daily newspaper "Nasz Dziennik". Later in 1997 he became Chief of the Cabinet of the Chief of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland. From 1998 to 2000 he was secretary general of the Zjednoczenie Chrześcijańsko-Narodowe (National-Christian Union). In 2001 he was one of the founders of Przymierze Prawicy (Alliance of Right). Alliance of Right united with Law and Justice in 2002.

He has been a member of the Sejm since 2001. He works in the Economy Committee and Public Finance Committee in the Polish Parliament. He is the President of the Polish-Irish Interparliamentary Group and Vice President of the Parliamentary Caucus for Defence of the Rights of the Family. He was re-elected in  2005. From 2013 to 2017 he was one of the leaders of National Movement.

He has been married since 1995 and has two daughters and a son.

References

1969 births
Living people
Politicians from Lublin
John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin alumni
Members of the Polish Sejm 2001–2005
Members of the Polish Sejm 2005–2007
Right Wing of the Republic politicians
Polish Roman Catholics

Artur Zawisza


Ghee is a type of clarified butter, originating from the Indian subcontinent. It is commonly used for cooking, as a traditional medicine, and for religious rituals.

Description
Ghee is typically prepared by simmering butter, which is churned from cream, skimming any impurities from the surface, then pouring and retaining the clear liquid fat while discarding the solid residue that has settled to the bottom. Spices can be added for flavor. The texture, color, and taste of ghee depend on the quality of the butter, the milk used in the process, and the duration of boiling time.

Etymology
The word ghee comes from  (, ) 'clarified butter', from , , 'to sprinkle'; cognate with the Ancient Greek word  (, 'rubbed, anointed'), from which derives the English word Christ.

In Hinduism
Traditionally, ghee is made from bovine milk, either cow or water buffalo. Ghee has been used in rituals since the Vedic period and it is a sacred requirement in Vedic yajña and homa (fire rituals), through the medium of Agni (fire) to offer oblations to various deities (See: Yajurveda).

Fire rituals are utilized for ceremonies such as marriage and funerals. Ghee is required in Vedic worship of mūrtis (divine deities), with aarti (offering of ghee lamp) called diyā or dīpa and for Pañcāmṛta (Panchamruta) where ghee along with mishri, honey, milk, and dahi (curd) is used for bathing the deities on the appearance day of Krishna on Janmashtami, Śiva (Shiva) on Mahā-śivarātrī (Maha Shivaratri). There is a hymn to ghee. In the Mahabharata, the kaurava were born from pots of ghee.

Finding ghee pure enough to use for sacred purposes is a problem these days for devout Hindus, since many large-scale producers add salt to their product. Ghee is also used in bhang in order to heat the cannabis to cause decarboxylation, making the drink psychoactive.

In Buddhist scripture, stages of dairy production are used as metaphors for stages of enlightenment. The highest-stage product, sarpir-maṇḍa, is theorised to be ghee or clarified butter.

Culinary uses
Ghee is common in cuisines from the Indian subcontinent, including traditional rice preparations (such as biryani). In Maharashtra, polis or Indian breads are accompanied with ghee. For example, 'Puranpoli', a typical Maharashtrian dish is eaten with much ghee. In Rajasthan, ghee often accompanies baati. All over north India, ghee tops roti. In Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, ghee tops dosa, and kesari bhath. In Bengal (both West Bengal and Bangladesh) and Gujarat, khichdi is a traditional evening meal of rice with lentils, cooked in curry made from dahi (yogurt), cumin seeds, curry leaves, cornflour, turmeric, garlic, salt and ghee. It is also an ingredient in kadhi and Indian sweets, such as Mysore pak and varieties of halva and laddu. Indian restaurants typically incorporate large amounts of ghee, sometimes brushing naan and roti with it, either during preparation or just before serving. In the state of Odisha ghee is widely used in regional Odia cuisines such as Khechedi and Dalma. Particularly the satwik type of food prepared in most temples in Odisha uses ghee as a major ingredient in their culinary tradition. Ghee is widely used in South Indian cuisine for tempering curries and in preparation of rice dishes and sweets. South Indians have a habit of adding ghee to their rice before eating it with pickles and curries. South Indians are among the biggest consumers of ghee. The people from  Andhra Pradesh especially use ghee for preparation of savoury and sweet dishes alike. Ghee is important to traditional North Indian cuisine, with parathas, daals and curries often using ghee instead of oil for a richer taste. The type of ghee, in terms of animal source, tends to vary with the dish; for example, ghee prepared from cow's milk () is traditional with rice or roti or as a finishing drizzle atop a curry or daal (lentils) whereas buffalo-milk ghee is more typical for general cooking purposes.

Ghee is an ideal fat for deep frying because its smoke point (where its molecules begin to break down) is , which is well above typical cooking temperatures of around  and above that of most vegetable oils.

Flavor
The main flavor components of ghee are carbonyls, free fatty acids, lactones, and alcohols.  Along with the flavor of milk fat, the ripening of the butter and temperature at which it is clarified also affect the flavor. For example, ghee produced by the clarification of butter at  or less results in a rich and mild flavor, whereas batches produced at  produce a strong flavor.

Differences from clarified butter
Ghee differs slightly in its production from that of clarified butter. The process of creating clarified butter is complete once the water is evaporated and the fat (clarified butter) is separated from the milk solids. However, the production of ghee includes simmering the butter, which makes it nutty-tasting and aromatic.

A traditional Ayurvedic recipe for ghee is to boil raw milk, let it cool to . After leaving it covered at room temperature for around 12 hours, add a bit of dahi (yogurt) to it and leave it overnight. This makes more yogurt. This is churned with water, to obtain cultured butter, which is used to simmer into ghee.

Nutrition and health

Like any clarified butter, ghee is composed almost entirely of fat, 62% of which consists of saturated fats. Most commercial preparations in India were also found to contain significant amount of trans fats. It has negligible amounts of lactose and casein and is, therefore, acceptable to most people who have a lactose intolerance or milk allergy.

Ghee consumption has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The British Dietetic Association, British Nutrition Foundation, National Health Service, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and World Health Organization advise people to limit ghee consumption due to its high saturated fat content.

Preparation methods

There are five common methods through which ghee is prepared. Industrial preparation on the other hand is done by using "white butter", usually sourced from other dairies and contractors.

Milk butter
Sour raw milk is churned into butter. The butter is boiled in an open pan to allow the water to evaporate. The hot ghee is transferred and stored.

Direct cream
Fresh cream, cultured or washed cream is directly converted to ghee. This method requires a long heating time and produces a caramelized flavor.

Cream butter
Milk is separated into cream which is then churned into butter. The butter undergoes heat clarification to produce ghee.

Pre-stratification
This method is suitable for large quantities of butter. Butter is melted at  for 30 minutes. Layers of protein particles, fat and buttermilk are induced. The buttermilk is drained out. The remaining layers of fat are heated to a temperature of  to remove moisture and develop flavor.

Packaging

Ghee is generally found to be packaged in airtight glass jars. They should be kept away from direct sunlight as sunlight can cause moisture to build inside the jar. Moisture can cause deterioration to the ghee's quality as well as reduce its shelf life. To prevent the acceleration of the oxidation process, they should be protected from anything that causes it, such as UV rays from sunlight and fluorescent lights. If the jar is unopened, it does not need to be refrigerated as long as the previously mentioned conditions are met. Once opened, they can be stored in a kitchen cabinet for up to three months. Afterwards, it may be left in the refrigerator for up to a year. The refrigerator causes ghee to harden but if it is left at room temperature for a while, it will soften up again.

Composition
Ghee may be made of milk from various domesticated ungulates, such as cows, buffaloes and sheep. The composition of ghee varies depending on the animal whose milk has been used. The vitamin A content ranged from 315 to 375 μg per 100 grams. Palmitic acid and oleic acid were two of the main fatty acids found in both cow and sheep ghee. The saturated fatty acid profile was 53.9 to 66.8%, the unsaturated fatty acid profile was 22.8 to 38.0% and the other fatty acids was 3.5 to 10.4%. Cholesterol amounts ranged from 252 to 284 mg/100 grams.

Market
The market size of ghee in India is 10,000 crores or US$1.5 billion as of 2016. India is the world's largest producer of buffalo and cow milk and consequently also the largest producer and consumer of ghee.

See also

 Beurre noisette
 Chrism
 Manteiga-da-terra
 Smen

References

Bengali cuisine
Butter
Cooking fats
Egyptian cuisine
Indian cuisine
Kurdish cuisine
Nepalese cuisine
Pakistani cuisine
Somali cuisine
Tamil cuisine
Indian dairy products

Ghee


Zoroaster, also known as Zarathustra, is regarded as the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism. He is said to have been an Iranian prophet who founded a religious movement that challenged the existing traditions of ancient Iranian religion, and inaugurated a movement that eventually became a staple religion in ancient Iran. He was a native speaker of Avestan and lived in the eastern part of the Iranian plateau, but his exact birthplace is uncertain. He founded the first documented monotheistic religion in the world and also had an impact on Plato, Pythagoras, and the Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

There is little scholarly consensus on when he lived. Some scholars, using linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, suggest a dating to somewhere in the second millennium BC. Other scholars date him to the 7th and 6th centuries BC as a near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great. Zoroastrianism eventually became the official state religion of ancient Iran—particularly during the era of the Achaemenid Empire—and its distant subdivisions from around the 6th century BC until the 7th century AD, when the religion itself began to decline following the Arab-Muslim conquest of Iran. Zoroaster is credited with authorship of the  as well as the , a series of hymns composed in his native Avestan dialect that comprise the core of Zoroastrian thinking. Little is known about Zoroaster; most of his life is known only from these scant texts. By any modern standard of historiography, no evidence can place him into a fixed period and the historicization surrounding him may be a part of a trend from before the 10th century AD that historicizes legends and myths.

Name and etymology
Zoroaster's name in his native language, Avestan, was probably . His translated name, "Zoroaster", derives from a later (5th century BC) Greek transcription,  (), as used in Xanthus's  (Fragment 32) and in Plato's First Alcibiades (122a1). This form appears subsequently in the Latin , and, in later Greek orthographies, as . The Greek form of the name appears to be based on a phonetic transliteration or semantic substitution of Avestan  with the Greek  (literally 'undiluted') and the BMAC substrate  with .

In Avestan,  is generally accepted to derive from an Old Iranian ; The element half of the name () is thought to be the Indo-Iranian root for 'camel', with the entire name meaning 'he who can manage camels'. Reconstructions from later Iranian languages—particularly from the Middle Persian (300 BC) , which is the form that the name took in the 9th- to 12th-century Zoroastrian texts—suggest that  might be a zero-grade form of . Subject then to whether  derives from  or from , several interpretations have been proposed.

If  is the original form, it may mean 'with old/aging camels', related to Avestic  (cf. Pashto  and Ossetian , 'old'; Middle Persian , 'old'):
 'with angry/furious camels': from Avestan , 'angry, furious'.
 'who is driving camels' or 'who is fostering/cherishing camels': related to Avestan , 'to drag'.
 Mayrhofer (1977) proposed an etymology of 'who is desiring camels' or 'longing for camels' and related to Vedic Sanskrit , 'to like', and perhaps (though ambiguous) also to Avestan .
 'with yellow camels': parallel to Younger Avestan .

The interpretation of the  () in the Avestan  was for a time itself subjected to heated debate because the  is an irregular development: as a rule,  (a first element that ends in a dental consonant) should have Avestan  or  as a development from it. Why this is not so for  has not yet been determined. Notwithstanding the phonetic irregularity, that Avestan  with its  was linguistically an actual form is shown by later attestations reflecting the same basis. All present-day Iranian-language variants of his name derive from the Middle Iranian variants of , which, in turn, all reflect Avestan's fricative .

In Middle Persian, the name is , in Parthian , in Manichaean Middle Persian , in Early New Persian , and in modern (New Persian), the name is .

The name is attested in Classical Armenian sources as  (often with the variant ). The most important of these testimonies were provided by the Armenian authors Eznik of Kolb, Elishe, and Movses Khorenatsi. The spelling  was formed through an older form which started with , a fact which the German Iranologist Friedrich Carl Andreas (1846–1930) used as evidence for a Middle Persian spoken form . Based on this assumption, Andreas even went so far to form conclusions from this also for the Avestan form of the name. However, the modern Iranologist Rüdiger Schmitt rejects Andreas's assumption, and states that the older form which started with  was just influenced by Armenian  ('wrong, unjust, idle'), which therefore means that "the name must have been reinterpreted in an anti-Zoroastrian sense by the Armenian Christians". Furthermore, Schmitt adds: "it cannot be excluded, that the (Parthian or) Middle Persian form, which the Armenians took over ( or the like), was merely metathesized to . ".

Date

There is no consensus on the dating of Zoroaster;  Avesta gives no direct information about it, while historical sources are conflicting. Some scholars base their date reconstruction on the Proto-Indo-Iranian language and Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, and thus his origin is considered to have been somewhere in northeastern Iran and sometime between 1500 and 500 BC.

Some scholars such as Mary Boyce (who dated Zoroaster to somewhere between 1700 and 1000 BC) used linguistic and socio-cultural evidence to place Zoroaster between 1500 and 1000 BC (or 1200 and 900 BC). The basis of this theory is primarily proposed on linguistic similarities between the Old Avestan language of the Zoroastrian Gathas and the Sanskrit of the Rigveda (–1100 BC), a collection of early Vedic hymns. Both texts are considered to have a common archaic Indo-Iranian origin. The Gathas portray an ancient Stone-Bronze Age bipartite society of warrior-herdsmen and priests (compared to Bronze tripartite society; some conjecture that it depicts the Yaz culture), and that it is thus implausible that the Gathas and Rigveda could have been composed more than a few centuries apart. These scholars suggest that Zoroaster lived in an isolated tribe or composed the Gathas before the 1200–1000 BC migration by the Iranians from the steppe to the Iranian Plateau. The shortfall of the argument is the vague comparison, and the archaic language of Gathas does not necessarily indicate time difference.

Other scholars propose a period between 7th and 6th century BC, for example,  or 559–522 BC. The latest possible date is the mid 6th century BC, at the time of Achaemenid Empire's Darius I, or his predecessor Cyrus the Great. This date gains credence mainly from attempts to connect figures in Zoroastrian texts to historical personages; thus some have postulated that the mythical Vishtaspa who appears in an account of Zoroaster's life was Darius I's father, also named Vishtaspa (or Hystaspes in Greek). However, if this was true, it seems unlikely that the Avesta would not mention that Vishtaspa's son became the ruler of the Persian Empire, or that this key fact about Darius's father would not be mentioned in the Behistun Inscription. It is also possible that Darius I's father was named in honor of the Zoroastrian patron, indicating possible Zoroastrian faith by Arsames.

Classical scholarship in the 6th to 4th century BC believed he existed 6,000 years before Xerxes I's invasion of Greece in 480 BC (Xanthus, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Hermippus), which is a possible misunderstanding of the Zoroastrian four cycles of 3,000 years (i.e. 12,000 years). This belief is recorded by Diogenes Laërtius, and variant readings could place it 600 years before Xerxes I, somewhere before 1000 BC. However, Diogenes also mentions Hermodorus's belief that Zoroaster lived 5,000 years before the Trojan War, which would mean he lived around 6200 BC. The 10th-century Suda provides a date of 500 years before the Trojan War. Pliny the Elder cited Eudoxus who placed his death 6,000 years before Plato, . Other pseudo-historical constructions are those of Aristoxenus who recorded Zaratas the Chaldeaean to have taught Pythagoras in Babylon, or lived at the time of mythological Ninus and Semiramis. According to Pliny the Elder, there were two Zoroasters. The first lived thousands of years ago, while the second accompanied Xerxes I in the invasion of Greece in 480 BC. Some scholars propose that the chronological calculation for Zoroaster was developed by Persian magi in the 4th century BC, and as the early Greeks learned about him from the Achaemenids, this indicates they did not regard him as a contemporary of Cyrus the Great, but as a remote figure.

Some later pseudo-historical and Zoroastrian sources (the , which references a date "258 years before Alexander") place Zoroaster in the 6th century BC, which coincided with the accounts by Ammianus Marcellinus from the 4th century AD. The traditional Zoroastrian date originates in the period immediately following Alexander the Great's conquest of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BC. The Seleucid rulers who gained power following Alexander's death instituted an "Age of Alexander" as the new calendrical epoch. This did not appeal to the Zoroastrian priesthood who then attempted to establish an "Age of Zoroaster". To do so, they needed to establish when Zoroaster had lived, which they accomplished by (erroneously, according to Mary Boyce some even identified Cyrus with Vishtaspa) counting back the length of successive generations, until they concluded that Zoroaster must have lived "258 years before Alexander". This estimate then re-appeared in the 9th- to 12th-century Arabic and Pahlavi texts of Zoroastrian tradition, like the 10th century Al-Masudi who cited a prophecy from a lost Avestan book in which Zoroaster foretold the Empire's destruction in 300 years, but the religion would last for 1,000 years.

Another possible date from the 9th century BC or before was suggested by Silk Road Seattle, using its own interpretations of Victor H. Mair's writings on the topic. Mair himself guessed that Zoroaster could have been born in the 2nd millennium BC.

Almut Hintze, the British Library, and the European Research Council have dated Zoroaster to roughly 3,500 years ago, in the 2nd millennium BC.

Place

The birthplace of Zoroaster is also unknown, and the language of the Gathas is not similar to the proposed north-western and north-eastern regional dialects of Persia. It is also suggested that he was born in one of the two areas and later lived in the other area.

 9 and 17 cite the Ditya River in Airyanem Vaējah (Middle Persian ) as Zoroaster's home and the scene of his first appearance. The Avesta (both Old and Younger portions) does not mention the Achaemenids or of any West Iranian tribes such as the Medes, Persians, or even Parthians. The  refers to some Iranian peoples that are unknown in the Greek and Achaemenid sources about the 6th and 5th century BC Eastern Iran. The  contain 17 regional names, most of which are located in north-eastern and eastern Iran.

However, in  59.18, the , or supreme head of the Zoroastrian priesthood, is said to reside in 'Ragha' (Badakhshan). In the 9th- to 12th-century Middle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, this 'Ragha' and with many other places appear as locations in Western Iran. While the land of Media does not figure at all in the Avesta (the westernmost location noted in scripture is Arachosia), the , or "Primordial Creation", (20.32 and 24.15) puts Ragha in Media (medieval Rai). However, in Avestan, Ragha is simply a toponym meaning 'plain, hillside.'

Apart from these indications in Middle Persian sources that are open to interpretations, there are a number of other sources. The Greek and Latin sources are divided on the birthplace of Zarathustra. There are many Greek accounts of Zarathustra, referred usually as Persian or Perso-Median Zoroaster; Ctesias located him in Bactria, Diodorus Siculus placed him among Ariaspai (in Sistan), Cephalion and Justin suggest east of greater Iran whereas Pliny and Origen suggest west of Iran as his birthplace. Moreover, they have the suggestion that there has been more than one Zoroaster.

On the other hand, in post-Islamic sources Shahrastani (1086–1153) an Iranian writer originally from Shahristān, present-day Turkmenistan, proposed that Zoroaster's father was from Atropatene (also in Medea) and his mother was from Rey. Coming from a reputed scholar of religions, this was a serious blow for the various regions who all claimed that Zoroaster originated from  homelands, some of which then decided that Zoroaster must then have then been buried in their regions or composed his Gathas there or preached there. Arabic sources of the same period and the same region of historical Persia also consider Azerbaijan as the birthplace of Zarathustra.

By the late 20th century, most scholars had settled on an origin in eastern Greater Iran. Gnoli proposed Sistan, Baluchistan (though in a much wider scope than the present-day province) as the homeland of Zoroastrianism; Frye voted for Bactria and Chorasmia; Khlopin suggests the Tedzen Delta in present-day Turkmenistan. Sarianidi considered the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex region as "the native land of the Zoroastrians and, probably, of Zoroaster himself." Boyce includes the steppes to the west from the Volga. The medieval "from Media" hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, and Zaehner has even suggested that this was a Magi-mediated issue to garner legitimacy, but this has been likewise rejected by Gershevitch and others.

The 2005 Encyclopedia Iranica article on the history of Zoroastrianism summarizes the issue with "while there is general agreement that he did not live in western Iran, attempts to locate him in specific regions of eastern Iran, including Central Asia, remain tentative".

Life

Zoroaster is recorded as the son of Pourušaspa of the Spitamans or Spitamids (Avestan  meaning 'brilliant' or 'white'; some argue that Spitama was a remote progenitor) family, and Dugdōw, while his great-grandfather was Haēčataspa. All the names appear appropriate to the nomadic tradition. His father's name means 'possessing gray horses' (with the word  meaning 'horse'), while his mother's means 'milkmaid'. According to the tradition, he had four brothers, two older and two younger, whose names are given in much later Pahlavi work.

Zoroaster's training for priesthood probably started very early around seven years of age. He became a priest probably around the age of 15, and according to Gathas, gaining knowledge from other teachers and personal experience from traveling when he left his parents at age 20. By the age of 30, Zoroaster experienced a revelation during a spring festival; on the river bank he saw a shining being, who revealed himself as  (Good Purpose) and taught him about  (Wise Lord) and five other radiant figures. Zoroaster soon became aware of the existence of two primal spirits, the second being  (Destructive Spirit), with opposing concepts of  (order) and  (deception). Thus he decided to spend his life teaching people to seek . He received further revelations and saw a vision of the seven , and his teachings were collected in the  and the .

Eventually, at the age of about 42, Zoroaster received the patronage of queen Hutaosa and a ruler named Vishtaspa, an early adherent of Zoroastrianism (possibly from Bactria according to the Shahnameh).

According to the tradition, he lived for many years after Vishtaspa's conversion, managed to establish a faithful community, and married three times. His first two wives bore him three sons, Isat Vâstra, Urvatat Nara, and Hvare Chithra, and three daughters, Freni, Thriti, and Pouruchista. His third wife, Hvōvi, was childless. Zoroaster died when he was 77 years and 40 days old. The later Pahlavi sources like  instead claim that an obscure conflict with Tuiryas people led to his death, murdered by a  (a priest of the old religion) named Brādrēs.

Cypress of Kashmar

The Cypress of Kashmar is a mythical cypress tree of legendary beauty and gargantuan dimensions. It is said to have sprung from a branch brought by Zoroaster from Paradise and to have stood in today's Kashmar in northeastern Iran and to have been planted by Zoroaster in honor of the conversion of King Vishtaspa to Zoroastrianism. According to the Iranian physicist and historian Zakariya al-Qazwini King Vishtaspa had been a patron of Zoroaster who planted the tree himself. In his  ('The Wonders of Creatures and the Marvels of Creation'), he further describes how the Al-Mutawakkil in 247 AH (861 AD) caused the mighty cypress to be felled, and then transported it across Iran, to be used for beams in his new palace at Samarra. Before, he wanted the tree to be reconstructed before his eyes. This was done in spite of protests by the Iranians, who offered a very great sum of money to save the tree. Al-Mutawakkil never saw the cypress, because he was murdered by a Turkic soldier (possibly in the employ of his son) on the night when it arrived on the banks of the Tigris.

Influences

In Christianity

Athanasius Kircher identified Zoraster with Ham.
The French figurist Jesuit missionary to China Joachim Bouvet thought that Zoroaster, the Chinese cultural hero Fuxi and Hermes Trismegistus were actually the Biblical patriach Enoch.

In Islam

A number of parallels have been drawn between Zoroastrian teachings and Islam. Such parallels include the evident similarities between Amesha Spenta and the archangel Gabriel, praying five times a day, covering one's head during prayer, and the mention of Thamud and Iram of the Pillars in the Quran. These may also indicate the influence of the Achaemenid Empire on the development of either religion.

The Sabaeans, who believed in free will coincident with Zoroastrians, are also mentioned in the Quran.

Muslim scholastic views

Like the Greeks of classical antiquity, Islamic tradition understands Zoroaster to be the founding prophet of the Magians (via Aramaic, Arabic , collective ). The 11th-century Cordoban Ibn Hazm (Zahiri school) contends that  "of the Book" cannot apply in light of the Zoroastrian assertion that their books were destroyed by Alexander. Citing the authority of the 8th-century al-Kalbi, the 9th- and 10th-century Sunni historian al-Tabari (I, 648) reports that Zaradusht bin Isfiman (an Arabic adaptation of "Zarathustra Spitama") was an inhabitant of Israel and a servant of one of the disciples of the prophet Jeremiah. According to this tale, Zaradusht defrauded his master, who cursed him, causing him to become leprous (cf. Elisha's servant Gehazi in Jewish scripture).

The apostate Zaradusht then eventually made his way to Balkh (present day Afghanistan) where he converted Bishtasb (i.e. Vishtaspa), who in turn compelled his subjects to adopt the religion of the Magians. Recalling other traditions, al-Tabari (I, 681–683) recounts that Zaradusht accompanied a Jewish prophet to Bishtasb/Vishtaspa. Upon their arrival, Zaradusht translated the sage's Hebrew teachings for the king and so convinced him to convert (Tabari also notes that they had previously been ) to the Magian religion.

The 12th-century heresiographer al-Shahrastani describes the Majusiya into three sects, the  (an otherwise undocumented sect that – per Sharastani – seems to have had a stronger doctrine of Ahriman's "non-reality"), the  and the , among which Al-Shahrastani asserts that only the last of the three were properly followers of Zoroaster. As regards the recognition of a prophet, Zoroaster has said: "They ask you as to how should they recognize a prophet and believe him to be true in what he says; tell them what he knows the others do not, and he shall tell you even what lies hidden in your nature; he shall be able to tell you whatever you ask him and he shall perform such things which others cannot perform." (Namah Shat Vakhshur Zartust, .5–7. 50–54)

Ahmadiyya view
The Ahmadiyya Community views Zoroaster as a Prophet of Allah and describe the expressions of the all-good Ahura Mazda and evil Ahriman as merely referring to the coexistence of forces of good and evil enabling humans to exercise free will.

In Manichaeism
Manichaeism considered Zoroaster to be a figure in a line of prophets of which Mani (216–276) was the culmination. Zoroaster's ethical dualism is—to an extent—incorporated in Mani's doctrine, which viewed the world as being locked in an epic battle between opposing forces of good and evil. Manicheanism also incorporated other elements of Zoroastrian tradition, particularly the names of supernatural beings; however, many of these other Zoroastrian elements are either not part of Zoroaster's own teachings or are used quite differently from how they are used in Zoroastrianism.

In the Bahá'í Faith
Zoroaster appears in the Bahá'í Faith as a "Manifestation of God", one of a line of prophets who have progressively revealed the Word of God to a gradually maturing humanity. Zoroaster thus shares an exalted station with Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, the Báb, and the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh. Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Bahá'í Faith in the first half of the 20th century, saw Bahá'u'lláh as the fulfillment of a post-Sassanid Zoroastrian prophecy that saw a return of Sassanid emperor Bahram; Effendi also stated that Zoroaster lived roughly 1000 years before Jesus.

Philosophy

In the , Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between  and . The cardinal concept of —which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of  (who is ), creation (that is ), existence (that is ), and as the condition for free will.

The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain and align itself to . For humankind, this occurs through active ethical participation in life, ritual, and the exercise of constructive/good thoughts, words and deeds.

Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy. Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster's thinking.

In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zoroaster as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zoroaster's impact lingers today due in part to the system of religious ethics he founded called . The word  is Avestan and is translated as 'Worship of Wisdom/Mazda' in English. The encyclopedia Natural History (Pliny) claims that Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks who, starting with Pythagoras, used a similar term, philosophy, or "love of wisdom" to describe the search for ultimate truth.

Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one's deeds. This personal choice to accept  and shun  is one's own decision and not a dictate of . For Zoroaster, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy, doing good works, or conducting good rituals) one increases  in the world and in themselves, celebrating the divine order, and coming a step closer on the everlasting road to . Thus, mankind are not the slaves or servants of , but can make a personal choice to be co-workers, thereby perfecting the world as saoshyants ("world-perfecters") and eventually achieving the status of an  ("master of ").

Iconography

Although a few recent depictions of Zoroaster show him performing some deed of legend, in general the portrayals merely present him in white vestments (which are also worn by present-day Zoroastrian priests). He often is seen holding a collection of unbound rods or twigs, known as a  (Avestan; Middle Persian ), which is generally considered to be another symbol of priesthood, or with a book in hand, which may be interpreted to be the Avesta. Alternatively, he appears with a mace, the —usually stylized as a steel rod crowned by a bull's head—that priests carry in their installation ceremony. In other depictions he appears with a raised hand and thoughtfully lifted finger, as if to make a point.

Zoroaster is rarely depicted as looking directly at the viewer; instead, he appears to be looking slightly upwards, as if beseeching. Zoroaster is almost always depicted with a beard, this along with other factors bearing similarities to 19th-century portraits of Jesus.

A common variant of the Zoroaster images derives from a Sassanid-era rock-face carving. In this depiction at Taq-e Bostan, a figure is seen to preside over the coronation of Ardashir I or II. The figure is standing on a lotus, with a  in hand and with a gloriole around his head. Until the 1920s, this figure was commonly thought to be a depiction of Zoroaster, but in recent years is more commonly interpreted to be a depiction of Mithra.

Western references to Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism

In classical antiquity

The Greeks—in the Hellenistic sense of the term—had an understanding of Zoroaster as expressed by Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and Agathias that saw him, at the core, to be the "prophet and founder of the religion of the Iranian peoples," Beck notes that "the rest was mostly fantasy". Zoroaster was set in the ancient past, six to seven millennia before the Common Era, and was described as a king of Bactria or a Babylonian (or teacher of Babylonians), and with a biography typical of a Neopythagorean sage, i.e. having a mission preceded by ascetic withdrawal and enlightenment. However, at first mentioned in the context of dualism, in Moralia, Plutarch presents Zoroaster as "Zaratras," not realizing the two to be the same, and he is described as a "teacher of Pythagoras".

Zoroaster has also been described as a sorcerer-astrologerthe creator of both magic and astrology. Deriving from that image, and reinforcing it, was a "mass of literature" attributed to him and that circulated the Mediterranean world from the 3rd century BC to the end of antiquity and beyond.

The language of that literature was predominantly Greek, though at one stage or another various parts of it passed through Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic or Latin. Its ethos and cultural matrix was likewise Hellenistic, and "the ascription of literature to sources beyond that political, cultural and temporal framework represents a bid for authority and a fount of legitimizing "alien wisdom". Zoroaster and the magi did not compose it, but their names sanctioned it." The attributions to "exotic" names (not restricted to magians) conferred an "authority of a remote and revelatory wisdom."

Among the named works attributed to "Zoroaster" is a treatise On Nature (), which appears to have originally constituted four volumes (i.e. papyrus rolls). The framework is a retelling of Plato's Myth of Er, with Zoroaster taking the place of the original hero. While Porphyry imagined Pythagoras listening to Zoroaster's discourse, On Nature has the sun in middle position, which was how it was understood in the 3rd century. In contrast, Plato's 4th-century BC version had the sun in second place above the moon. Colotes accused Plato of plagiarizing Zoroaster, and Heraclides Ponticus wrote a text titled Zoroaster based on his perception of "Zoroastrian" philosophy, in order to express his disagreement with Plato on natural philosophy. With respect to substance and content in On Nature only two facts are known: that it was crammed with astrological speculations, and that Necessity (Ananké) was mentioned by name and that she was in the air.

Pliny the Elder names Zoroaster as the inventor of magic (Natural History 30.2.3). "However, a principle of the division of labor appears to have spared Zoroaster most of the responsibility for introducing the dark arts to the Greek and Roman worlds." That "dubious honor" went to the "fabulous magus, Ostanes, to whom most of the pseudepigraphic magical literature was attributed." Although Pliny calls him the inventor of magic, the Roman does not provide a "magician's persona" for him. Moreover, the little "magical" teaching that is ascribed to Zoroaster is actually very late, with the very earliest example being from the 14th century.

Association with astrology according to Roger Beck, were based on his Babylonian origin, and Zoroaster's Greek name was identified at first with star-worshiping (, 'star sacrificer") and, with the , even as the 'living' star. Later, an even more elaborate mythoetymology evolved: Zoroaster died by the living () flux () of fire from the star () which he himself had invoked, and even, that the stars killed him in revenge for having been restrained by him.

The alternate Greek name for Zoroaster was Zaratras or Zaratas/Zaradas/Zaratos. Pythagoreans considered the mathematicians to have studied with Zoroaster in Babylonia. Lydus, in On the Months, attributes the creation of the seven-day week to "the Babylonians in the circle of Zoroaster and Hystaspes," and who did so because there were seven planets. Lucian of Samosata, in Mennipus 6, reports deciding to journey to Babylon "to ask one of the magi, Zoroaster's disciples and successors," for their opinion.

While the division along the lines of Zoroaster/astrology and Ostanes/magic is an "oversimplification, the descriptions do at least indicate what the works are "; they were not expressions of Zoroastrian doctrine, they were not even expressions of what the Greeks and Romans " the doctrines of Zoroastrianism to have been". The assembled fragments do not even show noticeable commonality of outlook and teaching among the several authors who wrote under each name.

Almost all Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha is now lost, and of the attested texts—with only one exception—only fragments have survived. Pliny's 2nd- or 3rd-century attribution of "two million lines" to Zoroaster suggest that (even if exaggeration and duplicates are taken into consideration) a formidable pseudepigraphic corpus once existed at the Library of Alexandria. This corpus can safely be assumed to be pseudepigrapha because no one before Pliny refers to literature by "Zoroaster", and on the authority of the 2nd-century Galen of Pergamon and from a 6th-century commentator on Aristotle it is known that the acquisition policies of well-endowed royal libraries created a market for fabricating manuscripts of famous and ancient authors.

The exception to the fragmentary evidence (i.e. reiteration of passages in works of other authors) is a complete Coptic tractate titled  (after the first-person narrator) discovered in the Nag Hammadi library in 1945. A three-line cryptogram in the colophones following the 131-page treatise identify the work as "words of truth of Zostrianos. God of Truth []. Words of Zoroaster." Invoking a "God of Truth" might seem Zoroastrian, but there is otherwise "nothing noticeably Zoroastrian" about the text and "in content, style, ethos and intention, its affinities are entirely with the congeners among the Gnostic tractates."

Another work circulating under the name of "Zoroaster" was the  (or ), and which ran to five volumes (i.e. papyrus rolls). The title and fragments suggest that it was an astrological handbook, "albeit a very varied one, for the making of predictions." A third text attributed to Zoroaster is On Virtue of Stones (), of which nothing is known other than its extent (one volume) and that pseudo-Zoroaster 'sang' it (from which Cumont and Bidez conclude that it was in verse). Numerous other fragments preserved in the works of other authors are attributed to "Zoroaster," but the titles of those books are not mentioned.

These pseudepigraphic texts aside, some authors did draw on a few genuinely Zoroastrian ideas. The Oracles of Hystaspes, by "Hystaspes", another prominent magian pseudo-author, is a set of prophecies distinguished from other Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha in that it draws on real Zoroastrian sources. Some allusions are more difficult to assess: in the same text that attributes the invention of magic to Zoroaster, Pliny states that Zoroaster laughed on the day of his birth, although in an earlier place, Pliny had sworn in the name of Hercules that no child had ever done so before the 40th day from his birth. This notion of Zoroaster's laughter also appears in the 9th– to 11th-century texts of genuine Zoroastrian tradition, and for a time it was assumed that the origin of those myths lay with indigenous sources. Pliny also records that Zoroaster's head had pulsated so strongly that it repelled the hand when laid upon it, a presage of his future wisdom. The Iranians were however just as familiar with the Greek writers, and the provenance of other descriptions are clear. For instance, Plutarch's description of its dualistic theologies reads thus: "Others call the better of these a god and his rival a daemon, as, for example, Zoroaster the Magus, who lived, so they record, five thousand years before the siege of Troy. He used to call the one Horomazes and the other Areimanius".

In the modern era

An early reference to Zoroaster in English literature occur in the writings of the physician-philosopher Sir Thomas Browne who asserted in his Religio Medici (1643):

In E. T. A. Hoffmann's novel Klein Zaches, genannt Zinnober (1819), the mage Prosper Alpanus states that Professor Zoroaster was his teacher.

In his seminal work Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885), the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche uses the native Iranian name Zarathustra which has a significant meaning as he had used the familiar Greek-Latin name in his earlier works. It is believed that Nietzsche invents a characterization of Zarathustra as the mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas about morality.

Notable influence on modern Western culture
The German composer Richard Strauss's large-scale tone-poem  (1896) was inspired by Nietzsche's book.

A sculpture of Zoroaster by Edward Clarke Potter, representing ancient Persian judicial wisdom and dating to 1896, towers over the Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State at East 25th Street and Madison Avenue in Manhattan. A sculpture of Zoroaster appears with other prominent religious figures on the south side of the exterior of Rockefeller Memorial Chapel on the campus of the University of Chicago.

See also

 List of founders of religious traditions
 List of unsolved deaths
 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, a philosophical novel by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
 Zartosht Bahram e Pazhdo, author of a Persian epic biography on Zoroaster.
 Zoroaster and the Mount Savalan
 , an opera by Jean-Philippe Rameau

Notes

References

Bibliography

 . Cf. especially Chapter IV: Prophets Outside Israel

External links
 Zoroaster at Encyclopædia Iranica
 Zoroaster at Encyclopædia Britannica

Ancient Iranian philosophers
Founders of religions
Iranian prophets
Iranian religious leaders
Prophets in Ahmadiyya
Miracle workers
People from Balkh
Place of birth unknown
Simple living advocates
Unsolved deaths
Year of birth unknown
Year of death unknown
Zoroastrianism
Supernatural beings identified with Christian saints

Zoroaster


The New Legend of Shaolin (; released in the United Kingdom as Legend of the Red Dragon and in the Philippines as Once Upon a Time in China-4) is a 1994 Hong Kong martial arts film directed by Wong Jing and Corey Yuen, and produced by Jet Li, who also stars in the lead role. The film showcases Hung Hei-kwun's exploits as a rebel against the Qing government, and it is one of two films in which Li and Miu Tse play a father-son duo, the other being My Father Is a Hero. The film was released in Hong Kong on 3 March 1994. The film also pays homage to the Japanese film Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance, with the opening scene being a parody of said film, while also having a similar plot of a father going on a journey of revenge with his infant son.

Plot
Rebel Hung Hei-kwun arrives in his village only to find it destroyed from a raid by government soldiers. Hung Hei-kwun rescues the sole survivor, his infant son, and the two prepare to go on the run before encountering fellow rebel Ma Ling-yee. Ma Ling-yee suddenly attacks Hei-kwun as government soldiers appear, and reveals that he betrayed Hung Hei-kwun and the village for the bounty on Hei-kwun's head. Hung Hei-kwun kills the soldiers and leaves Ma Ling-yee for dead.

Several years later, Hung Hei-kwun and Man-ting, now a young boy, are in a village with very little money. Nearby, a woman named Red Bean and her mother are running a con: Red Bean weeps over her mother, who is playing dead, and calls for a man's marriage proposal to fund the mother's burial costs. The wealthy but gullible Ma-Kai-sin propositions Red Bean. Hei-kwun tries to leave his son in the care of his brother but is betrayed, forcing him to kill his brother and more soldiers. Ma Kai-sin, witnessing the carnage done by Kwun, hires Hung Hei-Kwun as a bodyguard. Ma Kai-sin leads Hei-kwun and son, and Red Bean and mother, home to his mansion.

At Shaolin, monks tattoo parts of a treasure map onto the backs of five pupils who are then sent away to keep the map safe. The government, in pursuit of the map, attacks Shaolin with soldiers and Ma Ling-yee, who had survived by being dipped in poison and transformed into a disgusting creature. The soldiers massacre Shaolin, while Ma Ling-yee himself kills the abbot. They learn that the five pupils are at Ma Kai-sin's village.

At Ma Kai-sin's mansion, Red Bean and her mother plan to rob the place and leave. Red Bean sees Hung Hei-kwun as a threat to her plans and tries to kill him. They fight, and Red Bean is defeated. Hung Hei-kwun warns her not to cause any trouble. Man-ting accuses his father of having fallen in love with Red Bean because he spared her life. Meanwhile, Kai-sin's son, Ma Chiew-Heng, begins to bully Man-ting, but is beaten by Man-ting's superior Kung Fu. Chiew-Heng, who has part of the map tattooed on his back, calls upon his four Shaolin friends (who have the other parts of the map) to help him beat up Man-ting. Man-ting defeats all of the boys, earning him their respect and friendship. At night, Red Bean and mother attempt to rob Ma Kai-sin, but are thwarted by Hung Hei-kwun who defeats them in a fight.

On the Lunar New Year, Ma Ling-yee and government soldiers arrive at the village and attack Ma Kai-sin's mansion. During the melee, Ma Ling-yee fights Hung Hei-kwun, Man-ting and all the pupils except Ma Chiew-Heng are captured, and Red Bean is injured. Ma Kai-sin plays dead and falls asleep, while the rest of the group retreats. Hung Hei-kwun proposes marriage to Red Bean after treating her wounds, and she accepts. The group tracks the five boys down and Hung Hei-kwun rescues them, before fighting Ma Ling-yee. Man-ting joins his dad and together they blow up Ma Ling-yee using dynamite.

The group travels to the Red Flower Pavilion seeking a rumored Shaolin master. They are provided safe haven by friendly rebels led by Sung Young Chen. Sung Young Chen and his rebels are killed in an attack by Ma Ling-yee, who survived, and government soldiers attack. Red Bean's mother rescues the boys from a dart attack, but is fatally wounded. Ma Ling-yee attacks while they are mourning Red Bean's mother. Hung Hei-kwun and Man-ting fight Ma Ling-yee, assisted briefly by the Shaolin master who had previously appeared in the guise of a wax statue maker. Eventually Hung Hei-kwun kills Ma Ling-yee by kicking him into a vat of acid.

The group goes back to town, with each of the Shaolin pupils returned to their parents. Hung Hei-kwun, Man-ting, and Red Bean leave together as a family.

Cast
Jet Li as Hung Hei-kwun
Chen Sung-yung as Ma Kai-sin
Damian Lau as Chan Kan-nam
Ji Chunhua as Ma Ling-yee
Miu Tse as Hung Man-ting
Wang Lung-wei as Commander
Chingmy Yau as Red Bean
Deannie Yip as Red Bean's Mother
Wong Jing as Fong Sai-yuk (cameo)
Eric Tsang as Man in Crown (uncredited)

Release
The New Legend of Shaolin was released in Hong Kong on 3 March 1994. In the Philippines, the film was released as Once Upon a Time in China-4 by Solar Films on 22 September 1994.

Critical response
David Rooney of Variety called it "a high-kicking historical revenge spectacular" that is "a nonstop crowd-pleaser". Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that film will appeal to hardcore fans, but the well-executed actions scenes eventually become monotonous.

See also
Jet Li filmography
List of Hong Kong films
Lone Wolf and Cub

References

External links

1994 films
1990s martial arts comedy films
1990s Cantonese-language films
Films directed by Corey Yuen
Films directed by Wong Jing
Films set in the Qing dynasty
Hong Kong martial arts comedy films
Kung fu films
Wushu films
1990s Hong Kong films

The New Legend of Shaolin


Pierre Andre "Pete" Rinfret ( ; February 1, 1924 – June 29, 2006) was the founder of Rinfret-Boston Associates, an economic advisor to three American Presidents, and the Republican candidate for Governor of New York in 1990.

Biography
Rinfret was born in Montreal, Canada. His father and the entire family emigrated to the United States from Canada on November 12, 1929.

"We emigrated here because my father had gone bankrupt in his fur business. In Canada that was the ultimate disgrace and he was forced out, socially. He did not know a depression was coming in the U.S. and no one else did either. And so he thought he would have a new start. Little did he know what was ahead. He and all of us had gone from the frying pan into the fire!"

A self-made man, he studied electrical engineering at the University of Maine, and was then drafted into the Army in 1944, where he served General George S. Patton in France and received the Bronze Star. Upon his return he received a MBA from New York University, and spent two years in France as a Fulbright Scholar.

Working in the finance industry, he rose to become chairman of Lionel D. Edie in 1965 before forming his own firm. Rinfret served as an economic adviser to Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. In 1972, he was a Nixon campaign spokesman, and Nixon offered him a position on the Council of Economic Advisers and later considered him for a cabinet post.

He considered himself a professional financial analyst, first and foremost.

"I am the most proud of ... my 45 years of being a professional analyst of the U.S. and the world.  I was always an iconoclast, an icon breaker. I never was afraid to think for myself. More often than not I went against the trend and the accepted wisdom.  It got me into trouble quite frequently but my entire career was built on it ..."

1990 Run for Governor of New York
The Manhattan millionaire—by now styling himself as "Pete" Rinfret—agreed to become the Republican candidate in the 1990 gubernatorial election against Mario Cuomo at the request of former Tresury Secretary William Simon and state Senator Roy Goodman. Rinfret suffered when the Conservative Party of New York declined to cross endorse him and instead gave their support to Dr. Herbert London. Rinfret also contended that the Republican party gave him little or no support, and that there were several key members of the Republican party that was privately supporting London and the Conservatives. Mr. Cuomo went on to win the election with 53 percent, Mr. Rinfret 22 percent and the Conservative candidate, Herbert London, 21 percent.  Had Mr. London won a larger percentage the Republican party would have lost the second line of New York State election ballots to the Conservatives.

Pierre considered his run for governor as a moral victory.

"Mario Cuomo was mentioned frequently as a possible Presidential candidate, but after the run against us all that talk died since he won the election with a bare majority. We knocked him out of the Presidential box and out of NY politics. He beat two rank amateurs by the skin of his teeth! Few in the state realized the dire financial and economic condition of the state until my campaign.  The very first budget that Mario Cuomo presented to the Legislature after he beat me was almost identical to the one I had proposed and, as the Albany commentators said, "You elect Mario and you get Pierre's budget"

Rudy Giuliani beat Dinkins in the next election and the issue was the deteriorating state of New York City! George Pataki beat Mario Cuomo in the next election on some of the very grounds I had initiated, the deterioration in the state.

The new head of the Republican party in New York said right after the election "We owe Pierre".
Mario Cuomo said to my son Peter about a year ago and I quote, "Your father was far more perceptive than I was"."

Post 1990
He qualified as a pilot in 2000, at age 76, and died in 2006 at age 82.

He had posted his recollections and impressions of people he had known from politics and business on a web site during his retirement, and carried on a significant online correspondence with people from over twenty countries until just a few months before this death.
He was attempting to create an 'online memoir' of his life and experiences, from growing up in the Great Depression, to working with economists such as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan.

"I first met Alan Greenspan in 1948 when I attended the New York University School of Commerce, Accounts and Finance. At that time I was a junior in my studies and Alan was a sophomore. I was the Senior Fellow in the Economics department and he wanted to get a fellowship in the Department. ... "

1990 NYS Republican ticket
Governor: Pierre Rinfret
Lieutenant Governor: George Yancey
Comptroller: Edward Regan
Attorney General: Bernard C. Smith

References
 Recollections of Famous People
 Memories of the Great Depression
 Pierre Rinfret's Campaign for NY Governor

1924 births
2006 deaths
American aviators
20th-century American economists
American financial businesspeople
United States Army personnel of World War II
American people of French-Canadian descent
Businesspeople from Montreal
Canadian emigrants to the United States
New York (state) Republicans
New York University Stern School of Business alumni
University of Maine alumni
United States Army soldiers
20th-century American politicians

Pierre Andrew Rinfret


Thomas Donnelly (1764–1835) was Sergeant-at-Arms of the New York State Assembly from 1806 to 1813, and from 1814 to 1817.

Biography
He was born in 1764.

His parents were married in Trinity Church, Manhattan. At the outbreak of the revolution, his family was forced to move away from Manhattan because his father Peter was an outspoken well known patriot (Sons of Liberty). They bought a tavern in Newburgh, New York. Peter Donnelly was a Minuteman in the Militia. Newburgh was later the location of George Washington's headquarters from 1781 to 1782.

At the age of 14, Thomas Donnelly fought in the American Revolutionary War as an express rider messenger for Washington. His rank later was private in the regular army. His pension papers are at the national archives. Thomas Donnelly married Ruth Pettinger (1768–1838). Their daughter Hester Donnelly married Ulysses F. Doubleday (1792–1866).

He was Sergeant-at-Arms during the sessions of the 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th, 38th, 39th and 40th New York State Legislatures.

He died in 1835.

Legacy
Thomas's grandchildren were Colonel Thomas D. Doubleday (1816–1864), Abner Doubleday (1819–1893), General Ulysses Doubleday (1824–1893).

References

1764 births
1835 deaths
Military personnel from New York City
Politicians from Newburgh, New York

Thomas Donnelly (sergeant-at-arms)


Bertila of Spoleto (also Bertilla) (c. 860 – December 915) was the wife of Berengar I of Italy, and by marriage Queen consort of Italy and Holy Roman Empress.

Life
Bertila was a member of the powerful Supponid family. She was the daughter of Suppo II (c. 835 – c. 885), and of Bertha (dead by 921). Her paternal grandfather was Adelchis I of Spoleto, second son of Suppo I, and her paternal aunt was Engelberga, wife of Louis II of Italy.

She married Berengar, margrave of Friuli, sometime between 870 and 880. Berengar became King of Italy in 888, with Bertila as his queen. However, her husband lost his throne in the following year to Guy of Spoleto. Berengar began to reassert his power in 896, after the fall of the Spoleto family, and the withdrawal of Emperor Arnulf from the peninsula; however, a defeat by a Magyar army, and the decision by the Italian nobles to appoint Louis of Provence as King of Italy, delayed the King and Queen's formal return to power until 905. Throughout this period Bertila frequently intervened in Berengar's diplomas, particularly in favour of churches and monasteries. In these documents, Bertila is entitled consors regni ('partner in rule'), a title specifically denoting her power and influence, as opposed to that of a mere 'wife' (coniunx).

In 915 Bertila became Holy Roman Empress, after her husband was crowned Emperor. She died this same year, probably of poisoning, and perhaps at her husband's request. At about this time, Bertila had been accused of infidelity, although this charge was frequently made against the wives of kings in this period, and often masked wider political intrigues. Bertila was also accused of taking advice from an evil 'Circe'. Tiziana Lazzari suggests that this is a reference to Bertha of Tuscany, wife of Adalbert II, Margrave of Tuscany, who was in open opposition to Berengar's rule.
By December 915 Berengar had remarried, to Anna of Provence, daughter of Louis the Blind.

Issue
Bertila and Berengar had several children.  By 908, their daughter, Bertha, was abbess of Santa Giulia in Brescia, where her paternal aunt, Gisela, had once been a nun. Their younger daughter Gisela of Friuli (882–910) married Adalbert I of Ivrea, who were the parents of Berengar II of Italy.

Notes

References
G. Arnaldi, 'Bertilla,' In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Vol. 9 (Rome, 1967).
L. Schiaparelli, I diplomi di Berengario I (Rome, 1903).
B. Rosenwein, 'The family politics of Berengar I, King of Italy (888-924),' Speculum, LXXI (1996),
P. Skinner, Women in Medieval Italian Society, 500-1200 (Harlow, 2001).
Previté-Orton, C. W. 'Italy and Provence, 900–950,' The English Historical Review, Vol. 32, No. 127. (Jul., 1917), pp 335–347.
Reuter, Timothy (trans.) The Annals of Fulda (Manchester, 1992).Gesta Berengari, ed. P. de Winterfeld, MGH Poëtae Latini Medii Aevi, IV, 1 (Berlin, 1899).
T. Lazzari, 'Le donne del regno italico', in L'eredità culturale di Gina Fasoli. Atti del convegno di studi per il centenario della nascita (1905-2005) (Bologna-Bassano del Grappa, 25-26 novembre 2005)'', ed., F. Bocchi, G.M. Varanini (Rome, 2008).

External links

|-

860s births
915 deaths
Holy Roman Empresses
Frankish queens consort
Queens consort of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)
10th-century Italian women
Year of birth uncertain

Bertila of Spoleto


This article relates to the 2004 novel. For the legal practice, see Rule of four.

The Rule of Four is a novel written by the American authors Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason, and published in 2004. Caldwell, a Princeton University graduate, and Thomason, a Harvard College graduate, are childhood friends who wrote the book after their graduations.

The Rule of Four reached the top of the New York Times Bestseller list, where it remained for more than six months.

Plot summary

The book is set on the Princeton campus during Easter weekend in 1999. The story involves four Princeton seniors, both friends and roommates, getting ready for graduation: Tom, Paul, Charlie and Gil. Tom and Paul are trying to solve the mystery contained within an extremely rare, and mysterious book, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, which was an incunabulum published in 1499 in Venice, Italy; it is a complex allegorical work written in a modified Italian language frequently interspersed with material from other languages as well as its anonymous author's own made-up words.

Tom, the narrator, is the son of a professor who had dedicated his life to the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.  Throughout the novel, he struggles between being fascinated by the book and trying to pull away from the obsession that drew a rift between his father and his mother and is now causing discord between him and his girlfriend, Katie Marchand. Paul Harris is a young scholar who is writing his senior thesis on the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili and has spent all four of his undergraduate years studying the book and is on the edge of solving the book's mystery. His thesis advisors, Richard Curry and Vincent Taft, were friends and later rivals of Tom's father; Taft and Corelli found, stole, and concealed documents that provided clues to decode the mysterious book.

The title refers to a cipher that the characters find was used to encode a hidden message in the Hypnerotomachia, which leads to a secret vault in Rome, Italy of books and art that the author, Francesco Colonna, hid to protect them from Girolamo Savonarola's bonfire of the vanities. It also turns out that Paul's friend Bill Stein and his thesis advisor Vincent Taft were conspiring together to steal Paul's thesis and claim credit for it, and the sealed vault of treasures. They were murdered by Paul's wealthy but unstable benefactor Richard Curry to prevent this from happening. In a struggle with Curry that leads to a fire breaking out at Ivy Club, a Princeton eating club of which Gil is the president, Tom escapes but Paul and Curry are assumed to perish. The remains of a fragment of jawbone, found a few days after the tragic fire, ultimately match Curry's dental records, thus concluding that Curry perished when a gas main exploded due to the fire. Although no remains were ever found that would link to Paul's demise, he was assumed dead when he remained missing after some time.   Five years later, Tom, who is still traumatized and has had a failed engagement with another woman, receives an authentic ancient (and unknown) Botticelli canvas in the mail with a mysterious return address neatly printed on the mailing tube. A bit of quick research by Tom revealed that the painting was mailed from Florence, Italy. Another mysterious inscription on the tube, GEN4519, catches Tom's attention at once. After puzzling over its meaning, he finally makes the connection. Genesis Ch 45 Verse 19 in the Holy Bible. It says, "...get your father and come," followed by 45:20 "Never mind about your belongings, because the best of all Egypt will be yours." The painting was sent by Paul.  The book ends with Tom preparing to pack for a flight to Florence, Italy, to reunite with Paul.

Critical reception
The book has been well received by critics, with the New York Times Book Review calling it "the ultimate puzzle book", and several others comparing it positively to The Da Vinci Code. It received an aggregate score of 74 out of 100 (based on 17 reviews) on the review aggregator Metacritic.

See also

Joscelyn Godwin
Italian literature
Incunabulum

References

External links
 The Rule of Four official website

2004 American novels
Collaborative novels
Fiction set in 1999
Princeton University
Novels set in New Jersey
Campus novels

The Rule of Four