-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdatafile.txt
2390 lines (1988 loc) · 210 KB
/
datafile.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
Source of this content is copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
5,552,634 articles in English
ArtsBiographyGeographyHistoryMathematicsScienceSocietyTechnologyAll portals
From today's featured article
Coin of Cleopatra Selene and Antiochus XIII
Coin of Cleopatra Selene and Antiochus XIII
Cleopatra Selene (died 69 BC) was a queen of Seleucid Syria (83–69 BC). The daughter of Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III of Egypt, she became the queen of Egypt in 115 BC when she was married to her brother, King Ptolemy IX, and later probably married King Ptolemy X. In 103 BC, Cleopatra III established an alliance with the Seleucid ruler Antiochus VIII; Cleopatra Selene was sent to be his bride, and stayed with him until his assassination in 96 BC. The widowed queen married her previous husband's brother, Antiochus IX, who died in 95 BC. She then married her stepson, Antiochus X, who probably died in 92 BC. She hid somewhere in Syria with her children until 83 BC, when the Seleucid thrones in Antioch and Damascus became vacant. Declaring her son Antiochus XIII king, she ruled alongside him, according to depictions on coins from the period. She was ousted when the people of Antioch and Damascus, exhausted by the Seleucids' civil wars, invited foreign monarchs as their new rulers. She then controlled several coastal towns until she was besieged, captured and executed in 69 BC by Tigranes in Ptolemais. (Full article...)
Recently featured: Eastbourne manslaughter Illinois Centennial half dollar Ankylosaurus
Archive By email More featured articles
Did you know...
The Legend of Melusine (1491)
The Legend of Melusine (1491)
... that Felix Mendelssohn was so fascinated by a particular singer playing the role of a mermaid that he was inspired to write the overture The Fair Melusine (legend pictured)?
... that Xu Shijie came out of retirement to serve as the first party chief of the new province of Hainan, but was dismissed in the aftermath of the Tiananmen protests?
... that along with Mount Defiance and Mount Bailey, Diamond Peak is one of the few andesitic shield volcanos in the Cascade Range?
... that the high-waisted fashions of the early 1800s likely helped the Countess of Bessborough hide her figure from her husband while pregnant with her illegitimate daughter, Harriet Osborne?
... that targets for the ASM-N-6 Omar missile were put in a spotlight?
... that Patrick Zhuwao was expelled from Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU–PF party during the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état?
... that until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Norwood Tower held the only public restroom open to African Americans in downtown Austin, Texas?
... that in 2017, Canadian pitcher Claire Eccles became the first woman to play baseball in the collegiate West Coast League?
Recent additions Start a new article Nominate an article
In the news
Mudflow damage in Santa Barbara County, California
Mudflow damage in Santa Barbara County
The British construction and services company Carillion goes into compulsory liquidation.
The oil tanker MV Sanchi sinks with the loss of all 32 crew eight days after colliding with another ship.
At least 18 people are killed after mudflows (damage pictured) strike the area of Montecito, California, in the area affected by the recent Thomas Fire.
In cricket, the Ashes series concludes with Australia beating England.
The National Unity Party wins the most seats in the parliamentary election in Northern Cyprus.
Recent deaths: Jo Jo White John Spellman Dolores O'Riordan Cyrille Regis
Other recent events Nominate an article
On this day...
January 18: The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity begins
Jim Thorpe
Jim Thorpe
1866 – Wesley College, one of the largest schools in Australia by enrolment, was established in Melbourne.
1884 – Welsh physician William Price was arrested for attempting to cremate his deceased infant son; he was acquitted in the subsequent trial, which led to the legalisation of cremation in the United Kingdom.
1943 – World War II: As part of Operation Iskra, the Soviet Red Army eased the Siege of Leningrad, opening a narrow land corridor to the city.
1958 – African Canadian Willie O'Ree of the Boston Bruins played his first game in the National Hockey League, breaking the colour barrier in professional ice hockey.
1983 – Thirty years after his death, the International Olympic Committee presented commemorative medals to the family of American athlete Jim Thorpe (pictured), who had had his gold medals stripped for playing semi-professional baseball before the 1912 Summer Olympics.
Tamar of Georgia (d. 1213) · Elena Arizmendi Mejia (b. 1884) · Bruce Chatwin (d. 1989)
More anniversaries: January 17 January 18 January 19
Archive By email List of historical anniversaries
Today's featured picture
Wikipedia blackout
The Wikipedia blackout was a 24-hour period in which access to all articles on the English Wikipedia, barring those on the protested Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act, was suppressed. From January 18–19, 2012, visitors to the website saw only a protest message and the phrase "Imagine a world without free knowledge." It is estimated in excess of 160 million people viewed the banner, which was one of numerous protest actions undertaken at the time. The political environment regarding both bills shifted significantly following the protests, and both were removed from further voting.
Image: Wikipedia
Recently featured: Michelle Obama Chrysopa Kadavar
Archive More featured pictures
Other areas of Wikipedia
Community portal – Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas.
Help desk – Ask questions about using Wikipedia.
Local embassy – For Wikipedia-related communication in languages other than English.
Reference desk – Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.
Site news – Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Village pump – For discussions about Wikipedia itself, including areas for technical issues and policies.
Wikipedia's sister projects
Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:
Commons Commons
Free media repository MediaWiki MediaWiki
Wiki software development Meta-Wiki Meta-Wiki
Wikimedia project coordination
Wikibooks Wikibooks
Free textbooks and manuals Wikidata Wikidata
Free knowledge base Wikinews Wikinews
Free-content news
Wikiquote Wikiquote
Collection of quotations Wikisource Wikisource
Free-content library Wikispecies Wikispecies
Directory of species
Wikiversity Wikiversity
Free learning materials and activities Wikivoyage Wikivoyage
Free travel guide Wiktionary Wiktionary
Dictionary and thesaurus
Wikipedia languages
This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 5,552,634 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.
More than 1,000,000 articles: Deutsch Español Français Italiano Nederlands ??? Polski ??????? Svenska Ti?ng Vi?t
More than 250,000 articles: ??????? Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Melayu Català Ceština Euskara ????? ??? Magyar Norsk Português Româna Srpski Srpskohrvatski Suomi Türkçe ?????????? ??
More than 50,000 articles: Bosanski ????????? Dansk Eesti ???????? English (simple form) Esperanto Galego ????? Hrvatski Latviešu Lietuviu Norsk nynorsk Slovencina Slovenšcina ???
Complete list of Wikipedias
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inMain PageTalkReadView sourceView historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
MediaWiki
Meta-Wiki
Wikispecies
Wikibooks
Wikidata
Wikinews
Wikiquote
Wikisource
Wikiversity
Wikivoyage
Wiktionary
Languages
???????
?????????
Bosanski
Català
Ceština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
????????
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
?????
Français
Galego
???
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
?????
???????
Latviešu
Lietuviu
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
???
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Româna
???????
Simple English
Slovencina
Slovenšcina
?????? / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / ??????????????
Suomi
Svenska
???
Türkçe
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Complete list
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie statementMobile viewEnable previews
Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
This is a featured article. Click here for more information.
Cleopatra Selene of Syria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the daughter of Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III of Egypt. For the daughter of Cleopatra VII of Egypt and Mark Antony, see Cleopatra Selene II.
Cleopatra Selene
Cleopatra selene I.png
Obverse: Cleopatra Selene depicted in the foreground with her son Antiochus XIII in the background
Queen consort of Egypt
Tenure 115–107 BC
107–103 BC
Predecessor Cleopatra IV
Successor Berenice III
Queen consort of Syria
Tenure 103–96 BC
95 BC
95–92 BC
Predecessor Tryphaena
Queen regnant of Syria
Reign 83–69 BC
Predecessors Antiochus XII
Philip I
Successor Antiochus XIII
Co-king Regent for her son Antiochus XIII
Born c. 135–130 BC
Died 69 BC
Seleucia
Spouse
Ptolemy IX (115–107 BC; divorced)
Ptolemy X (107–103 BC; divorced)
Antiochus VIII (103–96 BC; widowed)
Antiochus IX (95 BC; widowed)
Antiochus X (95–92 BC; widowed)
Issue
Detail Antiochus XIII
Dynasty Ptolemaic
Father Ptolemy VIII
Mother Cleopatra III
Cleopatra Selene (Greek: ??e?p?t?a Se????; c.?135/130 – 69 BC) was the monarch of Syria as Cleopatra II Selene (83–69 BC). She was the daughter of Ptolemy VIII of Egypt by Cleopatra III. Cleopatra Selene was favored by her mother and became a pawn in Cleopatra III's political maneuvers. In 115, Cleopatra Selene became the queen of Egypt when she was married to her brother king Ptolemy IX by Cleopatra III as a replacement for the strong Cleopatra IV, who was also a daughter of Cleopatra III. Tension between the king and his mother grew and ended with Ptolemy IX's expulsion from Egypt, leaving Cleopatra Selene behind; she probably then married the new king, Ptolemy X.
In 103, Cleopatra III decided to establish an alliance with Antiochus VIII of Seleucid Syria; Cleopatra Selene was sent as his bride and stayed with him until his assassination in 96 BC. The now widowed queen decided to marry her previous husband's brother, Antiochus IX, but she lost her new husband in 95 BC. She then married her stepson, Antiochus IX's heir, Antiochus X; this was Cleopatra Selene's last marriage. Antiochus X disappeared from the records and is presumed to have died in 92 BC; Cleopatra Selene hid somewhere in Syria with her children until 83 BC when the Seleucid thrones in Antioch, ruled by Philip I, and Damascus, ruled by Antiochus XII, became vacant.
Cleopatra Selene had many children by several husbands. In 83 BC, she declared Antiochus XIII, her son by Antiochus X, king, and seems to have declared herself co-ruler. But the people of both Antioch and Damascus, exhausted by the Seleucids' civil wars, invited foreign monarchs to rule them: Tigranes II of Armenia took Antioch, while Aretas III of Nabataea took Damascus. Cleopatra Selene controlled several coastal towns until 69 BC, when she was besieged by Tigranes in Ptolemais; the Armenian king captured the queen and later executed her.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical background
2 Family and name
3 Queen of Egypt
4 Queen of Syria
4.1 Queen consort
4.2 Queen regnant and regent
4.3 Downfall
5 Issue
5.1 By Ptolemy IX
5.2 By Ptolemy X
5.3 By Antiochus X
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
8.1 Citations
8.2 Sources
9 External links
Historical background[edit]
By the second century BC, the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Kingdom were weakened by dynastic feuds,[1][2] constant wars against each other (known as the Syrian Wars), and Roman interference.[3] To ease the tension, the two dynasties intermarried;[4] Cleopatra I of Syria married Ptolemy V of Egypt in 193 BC,[5] and her grand-daughter Cleopatra Thea was married to three Syrian kings in succession starting in 150 BC.[6] Those intermarriages helped Egypt destabilize Syria which was especially fragmented between different claimants to the throne;[7] brothers fought between themselves and Egypt interfered by supporting one claimant against the other.[8]
Family and name[edit]
Cleopatra Selene was born between 135 and 130 BC to Ptolemy VIII and his wife Cleopatra III.[9] Cleopatra Selene had many siblings, including Ptolemy IX, Ptolemy X, and Cleopatra IV.[10] Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, mention that the queen's name is Selene,[11][12] and Strabo clarified that she was surnamed "Cleopatra".[13] Coins struck in her name record her as Cleopatra Selene.[14] Selene was the name of the Greek moon goddess and it is connected to the word selas (s??a?), meaning "light".[15] "Cleopatra" was a Ptolemaic dynastic name;[16] it means "famous in her father" or "renowned in her ancestry".[17] As a queen of Syria, she was the second to rule with the name 'Cleopatra', and hence, she is termed "Cleopatra II Selene" to differentiate her from her predecessor and aunt Cleopatra I Thea,[note 1][19] who was also the mother of Cleopatra Selene's husbands, Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX.[20] Classicist Grace Macurdy numbered Cleopatra Selene as "Cleopatra V" within the Ptolemaic dynasty and many historians have used this convention.[21]
Queen of Egypt[edit]
Sibling marriage was known in ancient Egypt, and although it was not a general practice, it was acceptable for the Egyptians;[22] the Ptolemaics practiced it, perhaps to consolidate the dynasty.[23] In 116 BC, Ptolemy VIII died and his will left Cleopatra III to rule alongside a co-ruler of her choice from between her two sons; she wanted to choose Ptolemy X but the people of Alexandria (the capital of Egypt) opposed this, forcing her to accept Ptolemy IX's ascension to the throne.[24] The new king had married his sister Cleopatra IV before the death of their father.[25] Shortly after his elevation,[26] Cleopatra III forced Ptolemy IX to divorce Cleopatra IV;[27] the 2nd-century historian Justin implied that Cleopatra III made this a condition of accepting Ptolemy as co-ruler.[28] Cleopatra Selene, favored by her mother Cleopatra III, was chosen as the new queen consort in 115 BC.[9] In 107 BC, the relationship between Ptolemy IX and his mother deteriorated;[29] Cleopatra III forced him out of Egypt, and he left his wife and children behind.[30]
The same year, 107 BC, Cleopatra Selene was probably married off to the new king, her younger brother, Ptolemy X.[31] In 103 BC, Ptolemy IX was fighting in Judea.[32] The queen mother feared an alliance against her between Ptolemy IX and his friend Antiochus IX of Syria, who was fighting a civil war with his brother Antiochus VIII; this led her to send troops to Syria.[30] Ptolemy X abandoned his mother and ran away, according to Justin,[33] and Cleopatra III then decided to marry Cleopatra Selene to Antiochus VIII[33] as a step to bring Antiochus VIII to her side in order to counter an alliance between Ptolemy IX and Antiochus IX.[30] Cleopatra Selene was divorced from Ptolemy X and sent to Syria.[note 2][31]
Queen of Syria[edit]
Queen consort[edit]
Ancient coin depicting a Seleucid ruler (Antiochus VIII)
Antiochus VIII, Cleopatra Selene's first Syrian husband
Ancient coin depicting a Seleucid ruler (Antiochus IX)
Antiochus IX, Cleopatra Selene's second Syrian husband
Ancient coin depicting a Seleucid ruler (Antiochus X)
Antiochus X, Cleopatra Selene's third Syrian husband
Ancient coin depicting a Seleucid ruler (Antiochus XIII)
Antiochus XIII, Cleopatra Selene's son
Details of Cleopatra Selene's life with Antiochus VIII are not clear; no known offspring resulted from the marriage,[36] though six of Antiochus VIII's children from his previous marriage are known.[37] In 96 BC, Herakleon of Beroia, a general of Antiochus VIII, assassinated his monarch and tried to usurp the throne, but failed and retreated to his home-town Beroia.[38] The capital of Syria, Antioch, was part of Antiochus VIII's realm at the time of his assassination; Cleopatra Selene probably resided there.[note 3][40]
The queen held out in the capital for a while before marrying Antiochus IX.[36] The manner in which Antiochus IX took control of Antioch and his new wife in 95 BC is not clear; he could have taken the city by force or it could be that Cleopatra Selene herself opened the gates for him.[40] In the view of historian Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, Cleopatra Selene had little reason to trust the five sons of her previous husband;[36] the queen needed an ally who would help her control the capital while Antiochus IX needed a wife and Cleopatra Selene's influence over the city's garrison and her late husband's officials.[40] It is unlikely that this marriage was received well by Antiochus VIII's sons. The first of them to act was Seleucus VI who was established in Cilicia.[41] Within a year of his marriage to Cleopatra Selene, Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and killed.[41] Soon afterwards, Seleucus entered the capital. Cleopatra Selene probably fled before the new king's arrival.[41] Alternatively, she might have been sent to Arados by Antiochus IX for protection before he marched against Seleucus.[41]
In 95/94 BC, Antiochus X, the son of Antiochus IX, proclaimed himself king in Arados,[41] and married Cleopatra Selene, who was his step-mother.[42] Antiochus pushed Seleucus VI out of Antioch in 94 BC.[42] The marriage was scandalous. Appian wrote an anecdote concerning the epithet of Antiochus X, "Eusebes" ("the pious"): it was given to him by the Syrians to mock his show of loyalty to his father by bedding his widow.[43] The rationale for the marriage might have been pragmatic: Antiochus X sought to be king, but had little resources and needed a queen.[44] Cleopatra Selene was in her forties and could not simply marry a foreign king. Furthermore, the Seleucid dynasty had a precedent of a son marrying his stepmother: Antiochus I had married his stepmother Stratonice, and this might have made it easier for Cleopatra Selene.[44] The last evidence for the reign of Antiochus X is dated to 92 BC,[45] and he is generally assumed to have died at around this date,[46] but ancient sources contain contradictory accounts and dates, and the numismatist Oliver D. Hoover suggested the date of 88 BC for Antiochus' demise.[47][48]
Queen regnant and regent[edit]
Cleopatra Selene's location during the reign of Antiochus' successors in Antioch, such as Philip I (one of Antiochus VIII's sons), is unknown. She evidently hid with her children somewhere in Syria,[49] and possibly fled to Coele-Syria or Cilicia.[50][51] Antiochus XII, another son of Antiochus VIII who was ruling in Damascus, died in 83 BC and it seems that Philip followed the same year.[52] Cleopatra Selene then pushed her children to claim the right of Antiochus X on the vacant throne,[53][49] with herself as the regent, based on the evidence of jugate coins which depict her alongside her ruling son.[54] Three of Cleopatra Selene's jugate coins have been found,[52] and they depict her son Antiochus XIII in the background and herself in the foreground, in the style of a queen regnant,[55] where the queen's name is written before that of the king's.[14] The children probably remained in Cilicia or somewhere else in Asia Minor for protection, which would explain Antiochus XIII's nickname, "Asiaticus".[55]
Cleopatra Selene's claims of authority were not generally accepted by the Syrians, who were frustrated by the Seleucids' constant civil wars.[56][52] In 83 BC, the people of Antioch invited Tigranes II of Armenia to rule Syria, while the people of Damascus invited Aretas III, King of the Nabataeans.[52] Tigranes never controlled the entire country and took Damascus only in 72 BC.[57] When she declared her son king, Cleopatra Selene controlled lands in Cilicia or Phoenicia or both.[55] The archeologist Alfred Raymond Bellinger suggested that she was in control of several coastal Syrian cities from a base in Cilicia; she certainly controlled Ptolemais and probably Seleucia Pieria.[49] The 1st-century historian Josephus wrote of "Selene ... who ruled in Syria",[52] indicating her continued influence despite her never controlling the capital Antioch.[57]
Based on her coins, Hoover suggested that Selene operated from Damascus;[54] those coins used a broken-bar Alpha, cursive Epsilon and squared Sigma.[58] This typography appeared in the Damascene coins of Demetrius III and Antiochus XII and is otherwise rare in the Hellenistic world.[58] If her currency was minted in Damascus,[note 4] then it dates to the period between 83 BC and Tigranes' occupation of the city in 72/71 BC;[note 5][61] Damascus' history is obscure in this period and Hoover suggested that Aretas III's rule in the city did not last long before Cleopatra Selene took control.[note 6][61]
In 75 BC, Cleopatra Selene sent Antiochus XIII and his brother to Rome, where they stayed until 73 BC, then returned to Syria;[62][57] they claimed the throne of Egypt based on their mother's birthright.[57] To impress the Roman Senate, the queen endowed her children with sufficient assets, which included a jewelled candelabrum that was dedicated to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.[57] The Senate refused to hear their petition for the Egyptian throne,[62] but, according to Cicero, their de jure right to the Syrian throne which they had inherited from their ancestors was already acknowledged.[62]
Downfall[edit]
In 69 BC, Tigranes besieged Cleopatra Selene in Ptolemais; the city fell according to Josephus, but Tigranes had to move north fast as the Romans started attacking Armenia.[19] According to Strabo, Tigranes imprisoned the queen in Seleucia and later had her killed.[63] The historian John D. Grainger explained Tigranes' action as a consequence of Cleopatra Selene's political importance; she was a winning card in the hands of her husbands, and Tigranes sought to deny other ambitious men from acquiring influence through her.[64] Others see Cleopatra Selene as a pawn in political schemes who later evolved into a schemer in her own right, one who decided her actions effectively based on her own benefit.[65]
Issue[edit]
By Ptolemy IX[edit]
Cleopatra Berenice (Berenice III), whose mother's identity is not certain, might have been a daughter of Cleopatra Selene, but Cleopatra IV is also a candidate and is favored by modern scholarship.[66]
According to Justin, Cleopatra Selene and Ptolemy IX had two children;[67] the historian John Whitehorne noted that the existence of those two children is doubted and they might have died at a young age.[68] In 103 BC, Cleopatra III sent all her grandsons and treasures to the island of Kos for protection in preparation for the queen mother's war with Ptolemy IX.[30] In 88 BC, Mithridates VI of Pontus captured all the Egyptian royals in Kos; the two children of Cleopatra Selene mentioned by Justin, if they actually existed and were sent to Kos by Cleopatra III, would have been among the captured.[69]
Ptolemy XII, the father of Cleopatra VII,[18][70] and his brother Ptolemy of Cyprus.[71] Ptolemy XII's legitimacy was historically questioned;[note 7] his father was certainly Ptolemy IX but his mother's identity is vague.[74] Cicero wrote that Ptolemy XII was royal "neither in birth nor in spirit",[72] but the classicist John Pentland Mahaffy noted that Cicero's words indicate that Ptolemy XII's mother was not a reigning queen at his birth, and so could be Cleopatra IV,[75] whose marriage to Ptolemy IX can be considered morganatic (a marriage between people of unequal social rank).[note 8][78]
Historian Christopher J. Bennett considered Ptolemy XII and his brother identical with the two children mentioned by Justin,[note 9] but proposed that they were the children of Cleopatra IV, considered illegitimate because of their parents "morganatic" marriage.[81] Hence, Cleopatra Selene was not the biological mother, rather, she was the official mother, thus explaining her attempt to raise one of her sons to the throne of Egypt in 75 BC by repudiating Ptolemy XII's legitimacy.[note 10][82] Whitehorne, citing Cleopatra Selene's denial of Ptolemy XII's illegitimacy, refused to identify Ptolemy XII and his brother as the two children mentioned in Justin's work.[80]
By Ptolemy X[edit]
Cleopatra Selene possibly bore Ptolemy X his son Ptolemy XI but her maternity can not be confirmed;[31] Cleopatra IV might have been the mother instead, but this is also an assumption and the identity of Ptolemy XI's mother remains a mystery.[68]
By Antiochus X[edit]
Identifying Antiochus X and Cleopatra Selene's children is problematic; Cicero wrote that the queen had two sons, one of them named Antiochus.[83] More children, perhaps a daughter, might have resulted from the marriage, but it can not be confirmed;[84] according to Plutarch, Tigranes II "put to death the successors of Seleucus, and [carried] off their wives and daughters into captivity".[85] Thus, it is possible that Cleopatra Selene had a daughter captured by Tigranes.[86]
Antiochus XIII: this son is the Antiochus of Cicero,[85] who, as a sole monarch following his mother's death, appears on his coins as Antiochus Philadelphos ("brother-loving"), but on coins where Cleopatra Selene is depicted along with her ruling son, the king is named Antiochus Philometor ("mother-loving").[87] This has led scholars to propose various theories: Kay Ehling, reasserting the view of Bouché-Leclercq, suggested that Cleopatra Selene had two sons, both named Antiochus.[87] But Cicero, who left one of the brothers unnamed, is clear that only one of them was named Antiochus;[83] for Ehling's proposal to be valid, Antiochus Philometor should be the Antiochus mentioned by Cicero, then he died and his brother, who had a different name, assumed the dynastic name Antiochus with the epithet Philadelphos, but this scenario is complicated and remains a mere hypothesis.[85] Thus, Antiochus XIII bore two epithets: Philadelphos and Philometor.[88]
Seleucus Kybiosaktes: the second son of Cleopatra Selene, who was unnamed by Cicero and does not appear in other ancient sources,[62] is generally identified by modern scholarship with a character named Seleucus Kybiosaktes, who appeared c.?58 BC in Egypt as a husband of Berenice IV of Egypt.[89] Kybiosaktes was never associated with Cleopatra Selene in the ancient sources; solid evidence is lacking and the identification remains a theory.[note 11][89]
Seleucus VII: in 2002, the numismatist Brian Kritt announced the discovery and decipherment of a coin bearing the portrait of Cleopatra Selene and a co-ruler;[91][92] Kritt read the name of the ruler as Seleucus Philometor and, based on the epithet, identified him with Cleopatra Selene's son, unnamed by Cicero.[90] Kritt gave the newly discovered ruler the regnal name Seleucus VII, and considered it very likely that he is identical with Kybiosaktes.[93] The reading of "Seleucus VII" was accepted by some scholars such as Lloyd Llewellyn Jones and Michael Roy Burgess,[31][52] but Hoover rejected Kritt's reading, noting that the coin was badly damaged and some letters were unreadable; Hoover read the king's name as Antiochus and identified him with Antiochus XIII.[92]
See also[edit]
flag Syria portal
List of Syrian monarchs
Timeline of Syrian history
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ In the Prosopographia Ptolemaica, Selene's entry is numbered 14520.[18]
Jump up ^ Justin wrote that Cleopatra III "made two daughters husbandless by marrying them to their brothers in turn".[34] This, in Christopher J. Bennett's view, indicates the divorce of Cleopatra Selene and Ptolemy X; it directly claimed that each of Cleopatra III's sons was forced to divorce his sister by the queen mother.[35] It is known that Ptolemy IX was forced to divorce Cleopatra IV, who, afterwards, was never in a position where the queen mother could force her to be divorced from Ptolemy X.[35] This leaves a forced divorce between Cleopatra Selene and Ptolemy X as the only possible option to explain Justin's remark.[35]
Jump up ^ In the view of John Whitehorne, Cleopatra Selene stayed in the palace under Herakleon then fled to Antiochus IX in Antioch after realizing that Herakleon would never be accepted as king.[39] There is no evidence that Herakleon ever controlled Antioch, and the place where he assassinated his king is not known.[40]
Jump up ^ Brian Kritt and Michael Roy Burgess suggested Ptolemais.[58]
Jump up ^ Oliver D. Hoover suggested that Tigranes invaded Syria only in 74 BC, with Philip I ruling until that year in Northern Syria.[59] In a paper presented at the 131st annual meeting of the American Historical Association, Nikolaus Overtoom, based on Hoover's chronology, suggested that Cleopatra Selene was in control of the south while Philip I ruled the north until 75 BC; his death meant that Cleopatra Selene's son was the strongest candidate to the throne but Philip's faction, being opposed to Cleopatra Selene, offered the crown to Tigranes who invaded and conquered the country in 74 BC.[60]
Jump up ^ This scenario might actually have been reversed: Cleopatra Selene took Damascus after Antiochus XII's death and was replaced by Aretas before 73 BC.[51]
Jump up ^ The Romans generally accepted Ptolemy XII as legitimate.[18] Many ancient writers questioned Ptolemy XII's legitimacy: Pompeius Trogus, who called him a "nothos" (bastard) and Pausanias, who wrote that Berenice III was Ptolemy IX's only legitimate offspring.[72] Michael Grant suggested that Ptolemy XII's mother was a Syrian or a partly Greek concubine while Günther Hölbl suggested that she was an Egyptian elite.[70] Robert Steven Bianchi declared that "there is unanimity amongst genealogists that the identification, and hence ethnicity, of the maternal grandmother of Cleopatra VIII is currently not known".[73]
Jump up ^ Ptolemy IX might have married Cleopatra IV while a prince ruling Cyprus; no other Ptolemaic king married his sister before ascending the throne.[25] Christopher J. Bennett suggested that Ptolemy IX's marriage to Cleopatra IV breached important rules of the dynasty: incest was not part of Greek culture and Ptolemaic brother-sister marriages were justified by the divinity of the king; a prince marrying his sister was an act of claiming divinity enjoyed only by the king,[76] and any children born to a prince and his sister before his ascension were likely to be considered illegitimate by the royal family.[77]
Jump up ^ Ptolemy XI, son of Ptolemy X, was among the princes captured by Mithridates VI and escaped, but it is known that Mithridates still had two Egyptian princes in his hands.[79] Ptolemy XII and his brother Ptolemy of Cyprus were in Syria before being called to Egypt following Ptolemy XI's death;[79] according to Whitehorne, this could be explained with them being the two children of Cleopatra Selene who made it to Syria from Pontus when Mithridates' son in law Tigranes II conquered it.[79] But Whitehorne then noted that the tradition of Ptolemy XII's illegitimacy is mentioned by contemporary authors and that Cleopatra Selene confirmed it when she tried to oust Ptolemy XII from Egypt in the 70s BC and replace him with one of her legitimate children.[80]
Jump up ^ Walter Gustav Albrecht Otto and Hermann Bengtson also argued that Ptolemy XII and his brother were the two children of Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra Selene mentioned by Justin; they explained the illegitimacy claims as a tool exploited by influential Romans who were hoping to benefit from Ptolemy XI's will which allegedly bequeathed Egypt to Rome.[71]
Jump up ^ Cassius Dio mentioned a certain "Seleucus" who appeared in 58 BC as a husband of Berenice IV whom she had killed,[62] while Strabo mentioned that the Syrian husband had the epithet "Kybiosaktes" ("salt-fish dealer") and pretended to be of Seleucid lineage before being killed by the queen.[62] Thus, Bellinger named Berenice IV's short-lived husband Seleucus Kybiosaktes, and differentiated him from a Seleucid candidate for Berenice's hand who died of a sudden illness, mentioned in the work of Eusebius who took the information from the writings of Porphyry.[62] The Seleucid who fell ill is suspected to be the same as Kybiosaktes by Edwyn Bevan.[90] The parallels between the accounts of Dio Cassius and Strabo, and their similarities with Porphyry's account, suggest that all those historians were writing about the same person, and modern scholarship has come to identify Cleopatra Selene's unnamed son with Seleucus Kybiosaktes but this remain a theory.[90]
References[edit]
Citations[edit]
Jump up ^ Marciak 2017, p. 8.
Jump up ^ Thompson 1994, p. 318.
Jump up ^ Goodman 2005, p. 37.
Jump up ^ Tinsley 2006, p. 179.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 81.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 149.
Jump up ^ Kelly 2016, p. 82.
Jump up ^ Kosmin 2014, p. 23.
^ Jump up to: a b Llewellyn Jones 2013, p. 1572.
Jump up ^ Green 1990, p. 548.
Jump up ^ Cicero 1856, p. 426.
Jump up ^ Appian 1912, p. 237.
Jump up ^ Strabo 1857, p. 161.
^ Jump up to: a b Bellinger 1952, p. 53.
Jump up ^ Kerényi 1951, p. 196.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 143.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 1.
^ Jump up to: a b c Siani-Davies 1997, p. 309.
^ Jump up to: a b Burgess 2004, p. 21.
Jump up ^ Boiy 2004, p. 180.
Jump up ^ Dumitru 2016, p. 253.
Jump up ^ Carney 2013, p. 74.
Jump up ^ Carney 1987, p. 434.
Jump up ^ Ashton 2003, p. 65.
^ Jump up to: a b Bennett 1997, p. 44.
Jump up ^ Bennett 1997, p. 43.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 165.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 134.
Jump up ^ Ogden 1999, p. 94.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Whitehorne 1994, p. 139.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Llewellyn Jones 2013, p. 1573.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 138.
^ Jump up to: a b Dumitru 2016, p. 258.
Jump up ^ Atkinson 2012, p. 117.
^ Jump up to: a b c Bennett 2002.
^ Jump up to: a b c Dumitru 2016, p. 260.
Jump up ^ Chrubasik 2016, p. XXIV.
Jump up ^ Dumitru 2016, pp. 260, 261.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 167.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Dumitru 2016, p. 261.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dumitru 2016, p. 262.
^ Jump up to: a b Dumitru 2016, p. 263.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 168.
^ Jump up to: a b Dumitru 2016, p. 264.
Jump up ^ Dumitru 2016, p. 2634.
Jump up ^ Hoover 2007, p. 290.
Jump up ^ Dumitru 2016, p. 265.
Jump up ^ Hoover 2007, p. 294.
^ Jump up to: a b c Bellinger 1949, p. 79.
Jump up ^ Hoover 2011, p. 260.
^ Jump up to: a b Houghton, Lorber & Hoover 2008, p. 613.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Burgess 2004, p. 20.
Jump up ^ Burgess 2004, pp. 20, 21.
^ Jump up to: a b Houghton, Lorber & Hoover 2008, p. 616.
^ Jump up to: a b c Burgess 2004, p. 24.
Jump up ^ Bellinger 1949, p. 80.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Bellinger 1949, p. 81.
^ Jump up to: a b c Hoover 2005, p. 98.
Jump up ^ Hoover 2007, p. 297.
Jump up ^ Overtoom 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Hoover 2005, p. 99.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Kritt 2002, p. 26.
Jump up ^ Bellinger 1949, p. 82.
Jump up ^ Grainger 1997, p. 45.
Jump up ^ Dumitru 2016, p. 271.
Jump up ^ Llewellyn-Jones 2013, p. 1567.
Jump up ^ Justin 1742, p. 282.
^ Jump up to: a b Whitehorne 1994, p. 176.
Jump up ^ Whitehorne 1994, p. 224.
^ Jump up to: a b Fletcher 2008, p. 353.
^ Jump up to: a b Otto & Bengtson 1938, p. 117.
^ Jump up to: a b Sullivan 1990, p. 92.
Jump up ^ Bianchi 2003, p. 13.
Jump up ^ Ager 2005, p. 7.
Jump up ^ Mahaffy 1899, p. 225.
Jump up ^ Bennett 1997, p. 45.
Jump up ^ Bennett 1997, p. 46.
Jump up ^ Mahaffy 1899, p. 211.
^ Jump up to: a b c Whitehorne 1994, p. 178.
^ Jump up to: a b Whitehorne 1994, p. 179.
Jump up ^ Bennett 1997, p. 52.
Jump up ^ Bennett 1997, pp. 47, 48, 52.
^ Jump up to: a b Dumitru 2016, p. 268.
Jump up ^ Dumitru 2016, pp. 269, 270.
^ Jump up to: a b c Dumitru 2016, p. 269.
Jump up ^ Dumitru 2016, p. 270.
^ Jump up to: a b Dumitru 2016, p. 267.
Jump up ^ Burgess 2004, pp. 20, 22.
^ Jump up to: a b Kritt 2002, pp. 26, 27.
^ Jump up to: a b c Kritt 2002, p. 27.
Jump up ^ Kritt 2002, p. 25.
^ Jump up to: a b Hoover 2005, p. 95.
Jump up ^ Kritt 2002, p. 28.
Sources[edit]
Ager, Sheila L. (2005). "Familiarity Breeds: Incest and the Ptolemaic Dynasty". The Journal of Hellenic Studies. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. 125. ISSN 0075-4269.
Appian (1912) [162]. Appian's Roman History with an English translation by Horace White in Four Volumes. 2. William Heinemann. OCLC 886392072.
Ashton, Sally-Ann (2003). The Last Queens of Egypt. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-582-77210-6.
Atkinson, Kenneth (2012). Queen Salome: Jerusalem's Warrior Monarch of the First Century B.C.E. McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-786-49073-8.
Bellinger, Alfred R. (1949). "The End of the Seleucids". Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences. Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences. 38. OCLC 4520682.
Bellinger, Alfred R. (1952). "Notes on Some Coins from Antioch in Syria". Museum Notes. The American Numismatic Society. 5. ISSN 0145-1413.
Bennett, Christopher J. (1997). "Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies". Ancient Society. Peeters Publishers. 28. ISSN 0066-1619.
Bennett, Christopher J. (2002). "Cleopatra Selene. Note 13.III". C. J. Bennett. The Egyptian Royal Genealogy Project hosted by the Tyndale House Website. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
Bianchi, Robert Steven (2003). "Images of Cleopatra VII Reconsidered". In Walker, Susan; Ashton, Sally-Ann. Cleopatra Reassessed. British Museum Press. ISBN 978-0-861-59103-9.
Boiy, Tom (2004). Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. 136. Peeters Publishers & Department of Oriental Studies, Leuven. ISBN 978-9-042-91449-0. ISSN 0777-978X.
Burgess, Michael Roy (2004). "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress– The Rise and Fall of Cleopatra II Selene, Seleukid Queen of Syria". The Celator. Kerry K. Wetterstrom. 18 (3). ISSN 1048-0986.
Carney, Elizabeth Donnelly (1987). "The Reappearance of Royal Sibling Marriage in Ptolemaic Egypt". La Parola del Passato. Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore. 42. ISSN 0031-2355.
Carney, Elizabeth Donnelly (2013). Arsinoe of Egypt and Macedon: A Royal Life. Women in Antiquity. 4. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-71101-7.
Chrubasik, Boris (2016). Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire: The Men who Would be King. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-198-78692-4.
Cicero (1856) [70 BC]. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. 1: Orations for Quintius, Sextus Roscius, Quintus Roscius, Against Quintus Cæcilius, and Against Verres. Translated by Yonge, Charles Duke. Henry G. Bohn. OCLC 650273594.
Thompson, Dorothy J. (1994). "Egypt, 146–31 B.C.". In Crook, John Anthony; Lintott, Andrew; Rawson, Elizabeth. The Last Age of the Roman Republic 146-43 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Revised Series). 9. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-25603-2.
Dumitru, Adrian (2016). "Kleopatra Selene: A Look at the Moon and Her Bright Side". In Coskun, Altay; McAuley, Alex. Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Historia – Einzelschriften. 240. Franz Steiner Verlag. ISBN 978-3-515-11295-6. ISSN 0071-7665.
Fletcher, Joann (2008). Cleopatra the Great: The Woman Behind the Legend. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0-340-83173-1.
Goodman, Martin (2005) [2002]. "Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period". In Goodman, Martin; Cohen, Jeremy; Sorkin, David Jan. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-28032-2.
Grainger, John D. (1997). A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava. Supplementum. 172. Brill. ISBN 978-9-004-10799-1. ISSN 0169-8958.
Green, Peter (1990). Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic Culture and Society. 1. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-08349-3. ISSN 1054-0857.
Hoover, Oliver D. (2005). "Dethroning Seleucus VII Philometor (Cybiosactes): Epigraphical Arguments Against a Late Seleucid Monarch". Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. 151. ISSN 0084-5388.
Hoover, Oliver D. (2007). "A Revised Chronology for the Late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0-64 BC)". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. Franz Steiner Verlag. 56 (3). ISSN 0018-2311.
Hoover, Oliver D. (2011). "A Second Look at Production Quantification and Chronology in the Late Seleucid Period". In de Callataÿ, François. Time is money? Quantifying Mmonetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times. Pragmateiai. 19. Edipuglia. ISBN 978-8-872-28599-2. ISSN 2531-5390.
Houghton, Arthur; Lorber, Catherine; Hoover, Oliver D. (2008). Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Guide: Part 2, Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. 1. The American Numismatic Society. ISBN 978-0-980-23872-3.
Justin (1742) [c. second century]. Justin's History of the World. Translated into English. With a Prefatory Discourse, Concerning the Advantages Masters Ought Chiefly to Have in Their View, in Reading and Ancient Historian, Justin in Particular, with their Scholars. By a Gentleman of the University of Oxford. Translated by Turnbull, George. T. Harris. OCLC 27943964.
Kerényi, Károly (1951). Gods Of The Greeks. Translated by Cameron, Norman. Thames and Hudson. OCLC 752918875.
Kosmin, Paul J. (2014). The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-72882-0.
Kritt, Brian (2002). "Numismatic Evidence For A New Seleucid King: Seleucus (VII) Philometor". The Celator. Kerry K. Wetterstrom. 16 (4). ISSN 1048-0986.
Llewellyn Jones, Lloyd (2013) [2012]. "Cleopatra Selene". In Bagnall, Roger S.; Brodersen, Kai; Champion, Craige B.; Erskine, Andrew; Huebner, Sabine R. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (13 Vols.). III: Be-Co. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-405-17935-5.
Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd (2013) [2012]. "Cleopatra V Berenike III". In Bagnall, Roger S.; Brodersen, Kai; Champion, Craige B.; Erskine, Andrew; Huebner, Sabine R. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (13 Vols.). III: Be-Co. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-405-17935-5.
Mahaffy, John Pentland (1899). A History of Egypt Under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Methuen & Co. OCLC 2735326.
Marciak, Michal (2017). Sophene, Gordyene, and Adiabene. Three Regna Minora of Northern Mesopotamia Between East and West. Impact of Empire. 26. Brill. ISBN 978-9-004-35070-0. ISSN 1572-0500.
Ogden, Daniel (1999). Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. Duckworth with the Classical Press of Wales. ISBN 978-0-715-62930-7.
Otto, Walter Gustav Albrecht; Bengtson, Hermann (1938). Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches: ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. und des 9. Ptolemäers. Abhandlungen (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse) (in German). 17. Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. OCLC 470076298.
Overtoom, Nikolaus (2017). "Civil War in Syria: The Rise and Fall of the Last Seleucid Queen Cleopatra Selene". Annual Meeting. The 131st. Friday, January 6, 2017: 10:50 AM. Room 302 (Colorado Convention Center). American Historical Association.
Kelly, Douglas (2016). "Alexander II Zabinas (Reigned 128–122)". In Phang, Sara E.; Spence, Iain; Kelly, Douglas; Londey, Peter. Conflict in Ancient Greece and Rome: The Definitive Political, Social, and Military Encyclopedia: The Definitive Political, Social, and Military Encyclopedia (3 Vols.). I. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-610-69020-1.
Siani-Davies, Mary (1997). "Ptolemy XII Auletes and the Romans". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. Franz Steiner Verlag. 46 (3). ISSN 0018-2311.
Strabo (1857) [24]. The Geography of Strabo: Literally Translated, with Notes. 3. Translated by Hamilton, Hans Claude; Falconer, William. Henry G. Bohn. OCLC 977553899.
Sullivan, Richard (1990). Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100–30 BC. Phoenix: Supplementary Volume. 24. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-802-02682-8.
Tinsley, Barbara Sher (2006). Reconstructing Western Civilization: Irreverent Essays on Antiquity. Susquehanna University Press. ISBN 978-1-575-91095-6.
Whitehorne, John (1994). Cleopatras. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-05806-3.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cleopatra Selene of Syria.
The Ptolemaic Dynasty by the late Christopher J. Bennett. Discusses the genealogy of the Ptolemaics in detail.
Cleopatra Selene's coin on the website of the American Numismatic Society
[show] v t e
Hellenistic rulers
Categories: 2nd-century BC births2nd-century BC Egyptian people2nd-century BC women1st-century BC Syrian people1st-century BC women69 BC deathsAncient queens regnantExecuted royaltyPtolemaic princessesQueens consort of the Ptolemaic dynastyQueens of Syria
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
Asturianu
?????????
Català
Deutsch
????????
Español
Euskara
Français
???
Íslenska
Italiano
?????
????
Nederlands
???
Norsk
Polski
Português
???????
?????? / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / ??????????????
Svenska
???
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Edit links
This page was last edited on 18 January 2018, at 02:13.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie statementMobile viewEnable previews
Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
This is a featured article. Click here for more information.
Eastbourne manslaughter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
R v Hopley (more commonly known as the Eastbourne manslaughter) was an 1860 legal case in Eastbourne, England, concerning the death of 15-year-old Reginald Cancellor (some sources give his name as Chancellor[1] and his age as 13 or 14)[2] at the hands of his teacher, Thomas Hopley. Hopley used corporal punishment with the stated intention of overcoming what he perceived as stubbornness on Cancellor's part, but instead beat the boy to death.
An inquest into Cancellor's death began when his brother requested an autopsy. As a result of the inquest Hopley was arrested and charged with manslaughter. He was found guilty at trial and sentenced to four years in prison, although he insisted that his actions were justifiable and that he was not guilty of any crime. The trial was sensationalised by the Victorian press and incited debate over the use of corporal punishment in schools. After Hopley's release and subsequent divorce trial, he largely disappeared from the public record. The case became an important legal precedent in the United Kingdom for discussions of corporal punishment in schools and reasonable limits on discipline.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Death
3 Trial
4 Reaction and aftermath
5 References
Background[edit]
Thomas Hopley, aged 41 at the time of the incident,[3] was a schoolmaster in Eastbourne who ran a private boarding school from his home at 22 Grand Parade.[4] He was well educated and from a middle-class family, the son of a Royal Navy surgeon and brother of artist Edward Hopley, author Catherine C. Hopley, and editor John Hopley. His household was fairly well off, and he and his wife kept several servants.[5][6] He had two children, the first of which had brain damage – "popular rumour" blamed this on "his unconventionally bracing notions of neonatal care".[7] However, Hopley was described by Algernon Charles Swinburne as "a person of high attainments and irreproachable character".[8] He expressed "utopian" educational ideals shared by many Victorian educational theorists.[5] He wrote pamphlets on education topics[8] which included "Lectures on the Education of Man", "Help towards the physical, intellectual and moral elevation of all classes of society", and "Wrongs which cry out for redress" advocating the abolition of child labour.[9]
In October 1859,[4] he was offered £180 a year (compared to an average annual salary of £94 for a male public elementary school teacher in 1860)[10] to teach Reginald Channell Cancellor, a "robust" boy who had been "given up as ineducable".[7] Reginald was the son of John Henry Cancellor (1799–1860), a master of the Court of Common Pleas and a "man of fair position" from Barnes, Surrey.[7][11] The boy had previously been a student at a private school in St. Leonards and under a private tutor.[12] He was not a good student, with contemporary sources suggesting he "had water on the brain" and describing him as "stolid and stupid".[11] Hopley attributed Cancellor's failure to learn to stubbornness. On 18 April 1860 he asked the boy's father for permission to use "severe corporal punishment" to obtain compliance,[1] with permission granted two days later.[13] Hopley did not possess the cane traditionally used to administer corporal punishment to students, so instead he used a skipping rope and a walking stick.[7]
Death[edit]
Cancellor was found dead in his bedroom on the morning of 22 April. His body was covered, with long stockings over his legs and kidskin gloves on his hands. The only visible part of the body was his face. A medical man of Hopley's acquaintance named Roberts pronounced that the boy had died of natural causes.[7] When questioned, Hopley suggested that Cancellor died of heart disease and argued that he should be buried immediately.[11] He wrote to the boy's father requesting the body's immediate removal and interment.[5] After viewing his son's dressed body, Cancellor's father accepted Roberts' assertion for cause of death and agreed to the burial.[7]
Rumours began to circulate among the Hopleys' servants, suggesting that Hopley's wife had spent the night prior to the body's discovery cleaning up evidence of her husband's murder of the boy.[11] Reginald's older brother, Reverend John Henry Cancellor, Jr. (1834–1900),[7] arrived in Eastbourne from Send, Surrey, on 25 April. He noticed discrepancies in the reports of his brother's death and requested an autopsy.[5] Hopley asked prominent physician Sir Charles Locock, an acquaintance of the Cancellor family and an obstetrician to the Queen, to examine the body and verify death by natural causes; Locock believed that Hopley was responsible for the death.[7]
A complete inquest into Cancellor's death was initiated. His body was taken for autopsy on 28 April and was found to be covered in blood under the gloves and stockings. His thighs were "reduced to a perfect jelly" and his body was covered in bruises and cuts, including two inch-deep holes in his right leg,[11] deep enough to allow the medical examiner, Robert Willis, to touch the bone underneath. Willis reported that other than these injuries, the boy was healthy and his internal organs (including the heart) were free of disease.[14] He thus concluded that Cancellor had not died of natural causes, as Hopley had suggested, and noted that the boy had obviously been beaten shortly before his death.[5][14] A female servant named Ellen Fowler, when questioned by investigators, reported that she had heard Cancellor screaming and being beaten from 10 pm until midnight and that, shortly thereafter, he abruptly fell silent.[11] She also noted traces of blood in the house and on Hopley's candlestick, which was left outside Cancellor's bedroom, and evidence that Cancellor's and Hopley's clothes had been washed soon before the former was pronounced dead.[4] Two other servants testified in the inquiry and gave similar accounts.[15]
The inquest was unable to determine Cancellor's exact cause of death, but noted several inconsistencies in Hopley's explanation of events. He had failed to summon a doctor immediately and, upon questioning, had given outlandish excuses for his failure to do so. Hopley attempted to explain away the blood on the candlestick by attributing it to a broken blister on his hand, but did not offer an explanation for Cancellor's injuries.[4][7] Hopley aroused further suspicion when he asked journalists present at the inquest not to include details of the corporal punishment in their stories, "in order to spare the feelings of the deceased family as of my own". Cancellor's family was deeply affected by the case, as they had been "disinclined" to see Cancellor beaten; his father died shortly after the inquest of a "broken heart."[5]
Trial[edit]
Caricature of Hopley's barrister, William Ballantine
Hopley was arrested in early May and, after a seven-hour preliminary hearing,[16] was released on 16 June on a £2,000 bail. He and his then-pregnant wife spent the period between the initial hearing and the trial at Uckfield.[7] Hopley was confident that he would be found not guilty. He began composing a pamphlet titled Facts Bearing on the Death of Reginald Channell Cancellor, to be published after the trial; it was published by an associate of Hopley's after his conviction and detailed Hopley's explanation of Cancellor's death and his justification for his treatment of the boy.[5][17] The press was extremely hostile, calling for a murder charge to be laid against him. He received a large amount of hate mail from anonymous members of the public.[7]
Hopley's trial took place at Lewes Assizes on 23 July 1860, before the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench Sir Alexander Cockburn and a jury. The prosecutors were John Humffreys Parry and William Jerome Knapp;[12] Hopley was defended by the serjeant-at-law William Ballantine, who subsequently described Hopley as "distorted".[5][11] Throughout his trial, Hopley described himself as reluctant to use corporal punishment. In describing the events preceding Cancellor's death, Hopley stated that he started crying while beating Cancellor, after which Cancellor presented his lesson and "Hopley took his head on his breast and prayed with him".[8] Hopley presented testimonials from past students who described him as "kindly" and who noted an infrequent use of violence. Hopley claimed to be a paedagogical follower of John Locke, who had decried the use of corporal punishment except in cases of extreme obstinacy on the part of the student. He argued that, through the application of this theory, the beating that killed Cancellor had been a necessary one.[5]
Robert Willis testified at the trial that there was no possibility that Cancellor's death had been a result of natural causes.[14] He presented a detailed description of the boy's injuries, suggesting that they had been sustained over several hours.[2] He also revealed that Cancellor's skull cavity contained six to eight ounces of fluid, attributing to this fluid the boy's seeming inability to learn as described by Hopley, but rejected any suggestions that it may have contributed to Cancellor's death.[18] Cancellor's brother, Fowler, and Locock all testified against Hopley; Locock's testimony was particularly hostile, suggesting that Hopley's incompetent response to interviews was "tantamount to an admission of guilt".[7] Other witnesses included the Hopleys' laundress, Roberts, three members of the coastguard who had seen lights on in the house late at night, a local constable, and the town registrar.[12]
Chief Justice Alexander Cockburn
Ballantine's conduct during the trial was flawed, and he believed Hopley was insane. Although he promoted the testimonials of former students and argued that a schoolmaster was unlikely to "so lightly jeopardize his ambitions", he congratulated Locock on the accuracy of his testimony in open court. Ballantine did not call key witnesses such as Edward Philpott, another student of Hopley's who had been at the house that night. Philpott slept in the bedroom beside Cancellor's and had reported hearing no unusual noises or screams from Cancellor's room on the night of his death. Neither did Ballantine call Professor John Eric Erichsen of University College Hospital, who had conducted a second autopsy on Cancellor on 11 May and suggested that "the misleading appearance of the body was attributable to an undiagnosed blood condition akin to haemophilia".[7] In his memoir Some experiences of a barrister's life, published in 1883, Ballantine offered a highly sensationalised account of Cancellor's death: "the wretched half-witted victim of a lunatic's system of education was deliberately mangled to death".[19]
Hopley was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, because of his position as a schoolteacher "endowed with parental authority".[1] Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, presented a summary of the decision:
By the law of England, a parent or a schoolmaster (who for this purpose represents the parent and has the parental authority delegated to him), may for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child, inflict moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, always, however, with the condition, that it is moderate and reasonable. If it be administered for the gratification of passion or of rage, or if it be immoderate or excessive in its nature or degree, or if it be protracted beyond the child's powers of endurance, or with an instrument unfitted for the purpose and calculated to produce danger to life and limb: in all such cases the punishment is excessive, the violence unlawful, and if evil consequences to life or limb ensue, then the person inflicting it is answerable to the law, and if death ensues it will be manslaughter.[20]
Cockburn further suggested that Hopley should have realised Cancellor's cognitive deficiencies and taken these into account in his treatment of the boy.[18]
Hopley was sentenced to four years of penal servitude, and was incarcerated in Portsea and Chatham.[11][7] After being indicted, he wrote of himself that "while anguish shook the frame, the conscience suffered not one pang. I searched and searched among the deepest secrets of my soul, and could not blame myself ... I could look up tranquilly into the face of heaven who knew me to be Not Guilty."[21] He believed that his actions were justifiable because he had undertaken them in his duty as schoolteacher.[1] He portrayed himself as a victim of public opinion, claiming that "a mournful accident was swelled up into a bloody midnight murder, and how it has been brought about that my unfortunate name has been branded, not simply through the United Kingdom, but through the civilised world, as one of the most execrable monsters or of madmen."[5] He published a pamphlet arguing that Locock had perjured himself and had conspired with Fowler to influence the outcome of the trial.[7]
Reaction and aftermath[edit]
Hopley was sent to Millbank Prison to serve his sentence.
The trial was sensationalised by contemporary media. The press derided Hopley as "monstrous", and criticised schoolteachers in general and private schoolteachers in particular. Newspapers published graphic accounts of Cancellor's injuries and autopsy and further exaggerated the early rumours surrounding his death. Cancellor's was the first death by corporal punishment to have received broad public interest. To prevent overcrowding, the court issued tickets for admission to the public gallery during the trial;[5] the courtroom was full an hour before the trial began.[3] After Hopley's conviction, he issued at least two pamphlets on model education from gaol, which were poorly received by the public.[8] Hopley's fame was short-lived; a month after his conviction, the press was focused on another case of corporal punishment, that of Caroline Lefevre, whose arms were allegedly burnt by her teacher.[5]
Following Hopley's release from prison, he became immediately embroiled in a sensationalised divorce trial. His wife, Fanny, had petitioned for divorce on the grounds that he was "unloving" and had mistreated her. She claimed that Hopley had married her as an "educational experiment", presenting Hopley's educational theories as evidence of his "lunacy".[5] She had been 18 years old to Hopley's 36 at the time of their marriage in 1855. According to her statements during the trial, Hopley frequently criticised her writing and insisted that the couple's three children should be raised as "second Christs".[22] She accused him of physically abusing her from the time of her first pregnancy,[22] beating their first child only days after its birth (the child was later found to be "brain-damaged"),[7] and suggesting that during his prison sentence she should be confined to a workhouse. Hopley responded by claiming that he set rules only to ensure the maintenance of his household and the wellbeing of his family, and produced a set of romantic letters he had received from Fanny during his incarceration as evidence of her unforced affection for him.[22]
The jury found Hopley guilty of cruelty, but suggested that Fanny had condoned his treatment of her.[22] The judge therefore ruled that her case was insufficient to grant a divorce. The verdict sparked outrage among the public, who believed that "a great injustice had been done", and that Fanny should not be forced to remain married to an abusive convicted killer.[5] Fanny left England shortly afterwards, allegedly to avoid having to continue living with Hopley.[22]
Hopley largely withdrew from the public eye after the trial, becoming a private tutor in London and publishing pamphlets on spiritualism in the late 1860s. He died at University College Hospital on 24 June 1876.[7] A retrospective editorial published in The Times in 1960 concluded that Hopley was not "the villain which some persons pictured him to be"; it noted that at the time of his arrest Hopley had been planning the construction of a "model school" in Brighton and that he had examined architect's drawings of the school after beating Cancellor.[6]
In 1865, Cancellor's death was used in a medical journal article discussing adult hydrocephalus. Despite Willis' statement that Cancellor had no pre-existing medical condition that would have caused or contributed to his death, author Samuel Wilks suggested not only that Cancellor had hydrocephalus, but that he was consequently more susceptible to physical injury as a result.[18] He pointed to the autopsy finding of fluid in Cancellor's brain to support his assertions and argued that this effusion would have caused physical weakness.[18]
R v Hopley was used as an archetypal case for legal commentaries about corporal punishment until physical discipline was officially banned in British schools over a century later.[23] According to education professor Marie Parker-Jenkins, R v Hopley is "the most quoted case of the 19th century involving the issue of corporal punishment".[1] The case is credited with prompting outcry against corporal punishment among the general public, although contemporary education journals rejected the possibility of abolishing corporal punishment.[23] Hopley's defence, known as "reasonable chastisement", became a frequently used response to charges of corporal punishment and was incorporated into the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.[2] Cockburn's requirement for "moderate and reasonable" punishment was established as a legal limit to corporal punishment and is still employed in modern legal scholarship.[24][25]
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Parker-Jenkins, Marie (1999). Sparing the rod: schools, discipline and children's rights. Trentham Books. pp. 5–13. ISBN 1-85856-159-0.
^ Jump up to: a b c Booth, Penny (2006). "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Punishment of Children Under English Law – Public and Private Vices?". Liverpool Law Review. 27 (3): 395–416. doi:10.1007/s10991-006-9008-8.
^ Jump up to: a b "Manslaughter by a schoolmaster". The Hull Packet and East Riding Times. 27 July 1860. p. 3.
^ Jump up to: a b c d "Manslaughter by a Schoolmaster". Colonist. 24 July 1860. p. 3.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Middleton, Jacob (November 2005). "Thomas Hopley and mid-Victorian attitudes to corporal punishment". History of Education. 34 (6): 599–615. doi:10.1080/00467600500313898. Retrieved 27 September 2010. (Subscription required (help)).
^ Jump up to: a b "A Sussex Tragedy". The Times. 21 April 1960. p. 14.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Moore, Julian (January 2008). "Hopley, Thomas". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 14 February 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Burn, WL (1964). The Age of Equipose: a study of the midwest generation. WW Norton. pp. 42–43, 54.
Jump up ^ Mackay, DP Leinster (January 1977). "Regina v Hopley: Some Historical Reflections on Corporal Punishment". Journal of Educational Administration and History. 9 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1080/0022062770090101.
Jump up ^ Bergen, Barry H (1982). "Only a Schoolmaster: Gender, Class, and the Effort to Professionalize Elementary Teaching in England, 1870–1910". History of Education Quarterly. 22 (1): 11–12. doi:10.2307/367830. JSTOR 367830.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h "A schoolboy beaten to death by his schoolmaster". The South Australian Advertiser. 11 September 1860. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Assize Intelligence". Daily News. 24 July 1860. p. 6.
Jump up ^ Parsons, Simon (1 August 2007). "Human Rights and the Defence of Chastisement". Journal of Criminal Law. 71 (4): 308–17. doi:10.1350/jcla.2007.71.4.308.
^ Jump up to: a b c "On this day: May 4, 1860". The Times. 4 May 2007. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
Jump up ^ "A Schoolmaster Committed for Manslaughter". The Times. 4 May 1860. p. 5.
Jump up ^ "Commital of a schoolmaster for manslaughter". Reynolds's Newspaper. 6 May 1860. p. 508.
Jump up ^ "The Eastbourne Tragedy". Manchester Times. 1 September 1860. p. 5.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Wilks, S (1 January 1865). "Clinical Notes on Chronic Hydrocephalus in the Adult". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 10 (52): 520–25. doi:10.1192/bjp.10.52.520.
Jump up ^ Ballantine, William (1883). Some experiences of a barrister's life. Richard Bently & Son. p. 329.
Jump up ^ R v Hopley, 1860, quoted in Parker-Jenkins, Marie (1999). Sparing the rod: schools, discipline and children's rights. Trentham Books. pp. 5–13. ISBN 1-85856-159-0.
Jump up ^ Quoted in Parker-Jenkins, Marie (1999). Sparing the rod: schools, discipline and children's rights. Trentham Books. pp. 5–13. ISBN 1-85856-159-0.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Another Extraordinary Divorce Case". Wellington Independent. 1 October 1864. p. 1.
^ Jump up to: a b Terasaki, Hiroaki. "Newspapers and Educational Journals on School Corporal Punishment in Nineteenth Century England" (PDF). Tokyo University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 14 February 2011.
Jump up ^ "140 years of chastisement". The Telegraph. 6 July 2004. Retrieved 14 February 2011.
Jump up ^ Harris, N; Pearce, P; Johnstone, S (1991). The Legal Context of Teaching. Longman. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-582-03956-8.
Categories: 1860 crimes1860 in the United KingdomCorporal punishmentsCrime in East SussexEastbourneHistory of education in EnglandHistory of SussexManslaughter in the United Kingdom19th century in SussexApril 1860 events
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Español
Nederlands
???
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last edited on 18 January 2018, at 02:23.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie statementMobile viewEnable previews
Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
This is a good article. Follow the link for more information.
Operation Iskra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Iskra
Part of the Eastern Front of World War II
Iskra 21-1-43.jpg
Development of Operation Iskra with the front line on the end of the January 12, 17 and 21, 1943.
Date January 12–30, 1943.
Location Southern shore of Lake Ladoga, near (Leningrad) present-day Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Result Soviet strategic victory.
Territorial
changes Siege of Leningrad eased.
Belligerents
Nazi Germany Germany Soviet Union
Commanders and leaders
Nazi Germany Georg Lindemann Soviet Union Kirill Meretskov
Soviet Union Leonid Govorov
Units involved
18th Army:
6 divisions initially
Total: 26 divisions[1] 2nd Shock Army
8th Army
67th Army
Total: 20 divisions,
15 brigades[2]
Strength
700 artillery pieces
50 tanks
[2] 4600 artillery pieces
500 tanks
900 aircraft[2]
Casualties and losses
12,000 killed
32,570 wounded[3] 33,940 dead and missing
71,142 wounded and sick. In all 115,000[4]
[show] v t e
Eastern Front
[show] v t e
Leningrad and the Baltics 1941–44
Operation Iskra (Russian: ???????? «?????», operatsiya Iskra; English: Operation Spark) was a Soviet military operation during World War II, designed to break the German Wehrmacht's Siege of Leningrad. Planning for the operation began shortly after the failure of the Sinyavino Offensive. The German defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad in late 1942 had weakened the German front. By January 1943, Soviet forces were planning or conducting offensive operations across the entire German-Soviet front, especially in southern Russia, Iskra being the northern part of the wider Soviet 1942–1943 winter counter offensive.[5]
The operation was conducted by the Red Army's Leningrad and Volkhov Fronts, and the Baltic Fleet during January 12–30, 1943 with the aim of creating a land connection to Leningrad. The Soviet forces linked up on January 18, and by January 22, the front line was stabilised. The operation successfully opened a land corridor 8–10 kilometres (5.0–6.2 mi) wide to the city. A rail road was swiftly built through the corridor which allowed more supplies to reach the city than the Road of Life across the frozen surface of Lake Ladoga, significantly reducing the possibility of the capture of the city and a German–Finnish linkup.[6]
The success led to a much more ambitious offensive operation named Polyarnaya Zvezda (Polar Star) less than two weeks later. That operation had the aim of decisively defeating Army Group North, lifting the siege altogether, but it achieved only minimal progress.[7] Soviet forces made several other attempts in 1943 to renew their offensive and completely lift the siege, but made only modest gains in each one. The corridor remained in range of German artillery and the siege was only over on January 27, 1944.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Preparations
2.1 German preparations
2.2 Soviet preparations
3 Battle
3.1 Start of the battle: January 12
3.2 Soviet advance: January 13–17
3.3 Linkup and land corridor: January 18–21
3.4 Front line stabilises, railway construction: January 22–30
4 Aftermath
5 Notes
6 References
7 Further reading
Background[edit]
The Siege of Leningrad started in early autumn 1941. By September 8, 1941 German and Finnish forces had surrounded the city, cutting off all supply routes to Leningrad and its suburbs. However, the original drive on the city failed and the city was subjected to a siege. During 1942 several attempts were made to breach the blockade but all failed. The last such attempt was the Sinyavino Offensive. After the defeat of the Sinyavino Offensive, the front line returned to what it was before the offensive and again 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) separated Leonid Govorov's Leningrad Front in the city and Kirill Meretskov's Volkhov Front.[9]
Despite the failures of earlier operations, lifting the siege of Leningrad was a very high priority, so new offensive preparations began in November 1942.[10] In December, the operation plan was approved by the Stavka and received the codename "Iskra" (Spark). The operation was due to begin in January 1943.[11]
By January 1943, the situation looked very good for the Soviet side. The German defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad had weakened the German front. The Soviet forces were planning or conducting offensive operations across the entire front, especially in southwestern Russia. Amidst these conditions, Operation Iskra was to become the first of several offensive operations aimed at inflicting a decisive defeat on the German Army Group North.[5]
Preparations[edit]
The area south of Lake Ladoga is a heavily forested area with many wetlands (especially peat deposits) closer to the lake. In addition the forest shielded both sides from visual observation. Both of these factors greatly hindered the mobility of artillery and vehicles in the area, providing a considerable advantage to the defending forces. One of the key locations were the Sinyavino heights which were some 150 metres higher than the surrounding flat terrain, which were some of the few dry and clear areas, and in addition provided good observation. Since the front line had changed very little since the blockade was established, the German forces had built a dense defensive network of strong points, interconnected by trenches and protected by extensive obstacles and interlocking artillery and mortar fire.[12] The Neva River and marshes were partially frozen in winter which allowed infantry to cross it, but not heavy vehicles.[13]
German preparations[edit]
German field defences in January 1943
The Germans were well aware that breaking the blockade was very important for the Soviet side. However, due to the reverse at Stalingrad and the Soviet offensive at Velikiye Luki to the south of Leningrad, Army Group North was ordered to go on the defensive and was stripped of many troops. The 11th Army, which was to lead the assault on Leningrad in September 1942, and which had thwarted the last Soviet offensive, was transferred to Army Group Center in October. Nine other divisions were also reassigned to other sectors.[14]
At the start of the Soviet offensive, the German 18th Army, led by Georg Lindemann consisted of 26 divisions spread across a 450 kilometres (280 mi) wide front. The army was stretched very thin and as a result had no division-level reserves. Instead, each division had a tactical reserve of one or two battalions, and the army reserves consisted of portions of the 96th Infantry Division and the 5th Mountain Division. The 1st Air Fleet provided the air support for the army.[13]
Five divisions and part of another one were guarding the narrow corridor which separated the Soviet Leningrad and Volkhov Fronts. The corridor was only 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) wide and was called the "bottleneck". The German divisions were well fortified in this area, where the front line had been virtually unchanged since September 1941, and hoping to repel the Soviet offensive.[10]
Soviet preparations[edit]
Situation on front on January 11
The plan for Operation Iskra was approved in December. The orders from the Stavka were:
“ With the combined efforts of the Volkhov and Leningrad Fronts, defeat the enemy in the area of Lipka, Gaitolovo, Dubrovka, Shlisselburg, and thus penetrate the Leningrad blockade. Finish the operation by the end of January 1943.[15] ”
This meant recapturing the "bottleneck" and opening a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) corridor to Leningrad. After that, the two fronts were to rest for 10 days and resume the offensive southward in further operations.[15]
The biggest difference from the earlier Sinyavino Offensive was the location of the main attack. In September 1942 the Soviet forces were attacking south of the town of Siniavino, which allowed them to potentially encircle several German divisions, but also left the army open to flanking attacks from the north, and it was this which ultimately caused the offensive to fail. In January 1943 the offensive was conducted north of Siniavino, closer to the Ladoga Lake shore, which removed the threat of flanking attacks and increased the probability of success, but forced the Soviets to abandon the idea of encircling most of the German forces in the "bottleneck".[15]
The offensive was to be conducted by Leningrad Front's 67th Army and Volkhov Front's 2nd Shock Army commanded by Major General M.P. Dukhanov and Lieutenant General V.Z. Romanovsky respectively. The 8th Army, commanded by Lieutenant General F.N. Starikov, was to conduct a limited offensive on the 2nd Shock Army's flank and defend elsewhere.[16] 13th and 14th Air Armies provided air support.
The two fronts spent December training and preparing for the offensive, and received significant reinforcements. These included not just replenishment and additional rifle divisions and brigades, but also significant additional artillery and engineer units, which were vital for breaching the heavy German defenses. Specialized winter units included three ski brigades and four aerosleigh battalions.[17] To ensure the Soviet forces had air superiority, which they had lacked in the previous offensive, the air strength in the area was increased to a total of over 800 planes, predominantly fighters. Large tank forces could not operate well in the swampy terrain, so the tank forces were used primarily as battalions reinforcing divisions or slightly larger brigades, which were to operate independently.[18]
Originally the operation was due to begin on January 1, but poor ice conditions on the Neva caused the offensive to be delayed until January 10–12.[17] A number of measures were taken to prevent the details of the operation being revealed to the Germans. Only a limited number of senior officers were involved in the planning, all redeployments took place in bad weather or at night and simulated attack preparations were made elsewhere to confuse the German side.[19]
On January 10, the Stavka sent Georgy Zhukov as its representative to coordinate the battle. The rifle divisions occupied their jumping-off positions on January 11, and first echelon tanks moved into their advanced positions early on January 12.[20]
Battle[edit]
Start of the battle: January 12[edit]
Soviet advance on January 12
The night before the start of the operations, the Soviet night bombers attacked the German divisional headquarters and artillery positions to disrupt the German command and control. The bombers also attacked German airfields and communication centres to disrupt the flow of reinforcements.[21] Operation Iskra began at 9:30 on January 12, when the two Soviet fronts began their artillery preparation, which lasted for 2 hours 20 minutes on the western side and 1 hour 45 minutes on the eastern side of the bottleneck. The Soviet attack started five minutes before the artillery preparation finished with a Katyusha barrage, to fully exploit its effects.[22]
The Leningrad Front forces achieved their greatest success between Shlisselburg and Gorodok 1. Here, the Soviet 136th and 268th Rifle Divisions with supporting tanks and artillery captured a bridgehead approximately 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) wide and 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) deep.[22] At 18:00 the sappers constructed bridges near Mar'ino to allow second echelon troops to advance. However, attacks further south, near Gorodok only resulted in the capture of the first line of German trenches. The attack further north at Shlisselburg failed. By evening, the Front command decided to exploit the formed bridgehead and troops attacking Shlisselburg across the Neva were redeployed there and started attacking it from the south.[23]
The Volkhov Front attack saw less success as the forces of the 2nd Shock Army managed to envelop but not destroy the German strong points at Lipka and Workers Settlement No. 8. The latter was an impressive defensive position with a garrison of 700 men and 16 bunkers. Heavy flanking fire from these strong points prevented any further advance, but the 2nd Shock Army penetrated the German defenses 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) between these points. Further south, between Workers Settlement No. 8 and Kruglaya Grove the advance was 1–2 kilometres (0.62–1.24 mi) deep, while even further south, the flanking attacks by the 8th Army only managed to capture the first line of German trenches.[23]
The German side reacted by deploying their reserves to the region throughout the night. One improvised battle group consisting of five battalions from the 96th Infantry Division, supported by artillery and four Tiger tanks moved to Gorodok No. 2 to reinforce the 170th Infantry Division to the west. Another similar battle group using battalions from the 96th Infantry Division was sent to Workers Settlement No. 1 to support the 227th Infantry Division.[24]
Soviet advance: January 13–17[edit]
Soviet advance by January 18
The next five days saw very heavy fighting as the Soviets slowly advanced through heavy German defences and repelled German counterattacks. On January 13, bad weather prevented the Soviet side from employing their air force. That day they gained almost no ground and incurred heavy losses.[25] The German side, after their counterattacks had failed to throw back the Soviet troops, started further reinforcing the area by assembling battle groups using portions of divisions from the quiet parts of the front. These included battle groups from the 1st Infantry Division, the 61st Infantry Division, the 5th Mountain Division and the SS Police Division.[26]
On January 14 the weather improved enough to allow air support again and the Soviet advance resumed, albeit at a slow pace. To speed up the encirclement of the strong point at Lipka, the Soviet side used the 12th Ski Brigade which crossed the ice of the Ladoga Lake and attacked the German rear lines. By the end of the day the German forces in the Lipka and Shlisselburg areas were almost completely cut off from the rest of the German forces.[27]
Throughout January 15–17 the Soviet fronts fought towards each other, capturing the strong points at Workers Settlements Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and most of Shlisselburg. By the end of January 17 they were only 1.5–2 kilometres (0.93–1.24 mi) apart between Workers Settlements Nos. 1 and 5.[28] On January 15, Govorov was promoted to colonel general.[29]
Linkup and land corridor: January 18–21[edit]
Soviet advance by January 22
On January 18, at 9:30 the lead elements from the 67th Army's 123rd Rifle Division and 2nd Shock Army's 372nd Rifle Division linked up near Workers Settlement No. 1, thus technically breaking the blockade and marking an important date in the Siege of Leningrad. German forces north of the settlement were cut off. Group Huhner, made up of two battle groups under the Lieutenant General Huhner, commander of the 61st Infantry Division, was supposed to hold the corridor between Workers Settlements Nos. 1 and 5 but was no longer able to do it. Later that day the Soviet forces captured Workers Settlement No. 5 after repelling a strong German counterattack. The lead elements from the 67th Army's 136th Rifle Division and 2nd Shock Army's 18th Rifle Division linked up to the north of the settlement at 11:45.[30] Group Huhner became cut off too and was ordered to break out through the forested area toward Siniavino before the main Soviet forces arrived and made a breakout impossible. Group Huhner abandoned its artillery and heavy equipment[27] and ran "the gauntlet of fire" before reaching Siniavino on January 19–20. The breakout was costly for both sides. By early afternoon, the Soviet forces cleared Shlisselburg and Lipka from German forces and started liquidating the forces remaining in the forests south of Lake Ladoga.[31]
During January 19–21 the Soviet forces eliminated the encircled German forces and tried to expand their offensive southward towards Siniavino. However, the 18th Army significantly reinforced its positions there with the SS Police, 21st Infantry, and soon after the 11th Infantry and 28th Mountain Divisions. The Soviet forces captured Workers Settlement No. 6 but were unable to advance any further.[7]
Front line stabilises, railway construction: January 22–30[edit]
There were no changes in the front line after January 21 as a result of Operation Iskra. The Soviet forces were unable to advance any further, and instead started fortifying the area to thwart any German attempt at re-establishing the blockade. On January 22, work started on the rail line linking Leningrad to the rest of the country through the captured corridor. The plan from the GKO written on January 18, ordered the construction to be finished in 20 days. The work was completed ahead of schedule and trains began delivering supplies on February 6, 1943. The operation officially ended on January 30.[32]
Aftermath[edit]
Operation Iskra was a strategic victory for the Soviet forces. From a military perspective, the operation eliminated the possibility of the capture of the city and a German–Finnish link up, as the Leningrad Front was now very well supplied, reinforced and able to co-operate more closely with the Volkhov Front. For the civilian population, the operation meant that more food was able to reach the city, as well as improved conditions and the possibility of evacuating more civilians from the city.[7] Breaking the blockade also had a significant strategic effect, although it was overshadowed by the surrender of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad only a few days later. Notably, the first Tiger tank captured by the Soviets was taken during this battle. It was undamaged and evacuated by the Soviet forces for evaluation.[33]
Also the victory led to promotions for Govorov, who was promoted to colonel-general on January 15, and Zhukov, who was promoted to marshal of the Soviet Union on January 18. In addition Govorov and Meretskov were awarded the Order of Suvorov 1st Class on January 28. The 136th and 327th Rifle Divisions were awarded the designation of 63rd and 64th Guards Rifle Divisions, while the 61st Tank Brigade was designated the 30th Guards Tank Brigade.[3]
For the German side, the battle left the 18th Army very stretched and exhausted. Lacking sufficient reinforcements, the command of Army Group North made the decision to shorten the front line by evacuating the Demyansk Pocket salient. The salient had been held throughout 1942, despite being encircled for a few months, as it was an important strategic bridgehead. Together with the Rzhev salient (which was also evacuated in spring 1943), it could potentially be used to encircle a large number of Soviet forces. However, in the situation that had developed, retaining it was no longer possible.[34]
Nevertheless, despite these conditions, the Stavka knew that "Operation Iskra" was incomplete, as the corridor it had opened was narrow and was still in range of the German artillery, and the important heights and strong point at Sinyavino were still under German control. This led Zhukov to plan a much more ambitious offensive operation named Polyarnaya Zvezda (Polar Star). The operation had the aim of decisively defeating Army Group North, but faltered early on.[7] The Soviet forces carried several other offensives in the area in 1943, slowly expanding the corridor, making other small gains before finally capturing Siniavino in September.[35] However, the city was still subjected to at least a partial siege as well as air and artillery bombardment until January 1944, when the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive broke through the German lines, lifting the siege completely.[36]
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Glantz, pp. 262–263
^ Jump up to: a b c Isayev, pp. 450–451
^ Jump up to: a b Glantz p. 285
Jump up ^ http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt
^ Jump up to: a b Glantz p. 259
Jump up ^ Glantz pp. 284–285
^ Jump up to: a b c d Glantz p. 284
Jump up ^ Glantz p. 366
Jump up ^ Isayev p. 441
^ Jump up to: a b Glantz p. 264
Jump up ^ Glantz p. 265
Jump up ^ Glantz pp.216–217
^ Jump up to: a b Glantz p. 263
Jump up ^ Glantz p. 262
^ Jump up to: a b c Isayev p. 444
Jump up ^ Glantz p. 268
^ Jump up to: a b Glantz p. 266
Jump up ^ Glantz pp. 269–270
Jump up ^ Glantz p. 272
Jump up ^ Glantz p. 273
Jump up ^ Isayev p.454
^ Jump up to: a b Glantz p.274
^ Jump up to: a b Isayev p.455
Jump up ^ Glantz p.277
Jump up ^ Isayev pp.456–457
Jump up ^ Glantz p.280
^ Jump up to: a b Isayev p.457
Jump up ^ Glantz pp.281–282
Jump up ^ Kiselev p. 140
Jump up ^ Glantz p.282
Jump up ^ Glantz p.283
Jump up ^ Isayev p.461
Jump up ^ Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E Sd. Kfz. 181 achtungpanzer.com
Jump up ^ Isayev p. 467
Jump up ^ Glantz p. 323
Jump up ^ Glantz p.303
References[edit]
Glantz, David M. (2002). The Battle for Leningrad 1941–1944. Kansas University Press. ISBN 0-7006-1208-4.
????? (Isayev), ??????? ?????????? (2006). ????? ??????????? ??? ?? ????. ??????? ???, ??????? ?? ?? ?????. (in Russian). ?. ????, ?????. ISBN 5-699-11949-3.
??????? (Kiselev), ?. ?. (1971). ?????????? ? ????????????? ??????? ?????????????. (in Russian). ??????? ???????.
Further reading[edit]
Glantz, David M. (2005). Leningrad: City Under Siege 1941–1944. Grange Books. ISBN 1-84013-798-3.
Haupt, Werner (1997). Army Group North. The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941–1945. Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, Pennsylvania. ISBN 0-7643-0182-9.
Krivosheev, Grigoriy (2001). "?????? ? ???? ? ?????? XX ????: ?????? ??????????? ???: ?????????????? ????????????" [Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20th century: Loss of armed forces: Statistical study] (in Russian). Google translation
Meretskov, Kirill (1971). ?? ?????? ?????? (in Russian) Serving the People. Imported Publications, Incorporated, (English Translation). ISBN 0-8285-0494-6.
??????????? (Feyuninsky), ?. ? (1964). ???????? ?? ??????? (in Russian). ??????? ???-?? ?? ????.
Coordinates: 59.9000°N 31.0670°E
Categories: Conflicts in 19431943 in the Soviet UnionBattles and operations of the Soviet–German WarMilitary operations of World War II involving GermanyStrategic operations of the Red Army in World War IIJanuary 1943 events
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
?????????
Català
Ceština
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Français
Magyar
???
Polski
Româna
???????
Slovencina
Suomi
Türkçe
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Edit links
This page was last edited on 12 November 2017, at 06:55.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie statementMobile viewEnable previews
Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
Elena Arizmendi Mejia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This name uses Spanish naming customs: the first or paternal family name is Arizmendi and the second or maternal family name is Mejia.
Elena Arizmendi Mejia
Elena Arizmendi ca 1916.PNG
Born 18 January 1884
Mexico City, Mexico
Died 1949 (aged 64–65)
Mexico City, Mexico
Nationality Mexican
Occupation journalist
Years active 1920–1938
Known for established the Neutral White Cross
Elena Arizmendi Mejía (18 January 1884 – 1949) was a Mexican feminist who established the Neutral White Cross organization during the Mexican Revolution. She was a part of the first wave of Mexican feminism and established the "Mujeres de la raza" (Women of the [Hispanic] Race) and the International League of Iberian and Latin American Women in cooperation with G. Sofía Villa de Buentello.
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 Autobiography
3 Further reading
4 References
Biography[edit]
Elena Arizmendi Mejía was born 18 January 1884 in Mexico City to Jesús Arizmendi and Isabel Mejía,[1] a family of privilege. She was the granddaughter of Ignacio Mejía (es) who served as Secretary of War, and was a Division General under the regime of President Benito Juárez.[2] Her great-grandfather was Lieutenant Colonel Manuel Cristóbal Mejía, who fought in the Mexican War of Independence in the army of Agustín de Iturbide. Arizmendi spent some of her early years with her grandfather in Oaxaca and then returned to Mexico City at about the age of 8. She was schooled in Mexico City, possibly at San Ignacio de Loyola, but when her mother died in 1898, Arizmendi took control of her five brothers and the household. When her he father remarried in 1900, Arizmendi hastily entered marriage with Francisco Carreto, but the union quickly crumbled and she decided to study nursing.[1]
Her family had close ties with Francisco I. Madero and the school in which Arizmendi was enrolled was next door to Madero's Texas retreat. In 1910, she was studying at the School of Nursing of the Santa Rosa Hospital (now the School of Nursing at the University of the Incarnate Word) in San Antonio, Texas when the war broke out. On 17 April 1911, a few weeks prior to her graduation, Arizmendi returned via train to Mexico City to help with wounded combatants,[2] as the Mexican Red Cross refused to provide aid to insurgents.[3] Arizmendi arranged a personal meeting with the head of the Red Cross, who reiterated the refusal to support revolutionaries. Determined to help her countrymen, Arizmendi founded an organization to help and with her brother Carlos rallied medical students and nurses to organize the Cruz Blanca Neutral (Neutral White Cross).[2]
Elena Arizmendi and volunteers of the Neutral White Cross, 1911
They formed an association under the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions and she became the fundraiser, enlisting the help of celebrities like María Conesa, Virginia Fábregas, and Leopoldo Beristáin. After numerous fundraisers, they collected sufficient funds for a field hospital and on 11 May 1911, set off for Ciudad Juárez. Arizmendi and Carlos, formed the first brigade with Dr. Ignacio Barrios and Dr. Antonio Márquez and nurses María Avon, Juana Flores Gallardo, Atilana García, Elena de Lange, and Tomasa Villareal. The second brigade, led by Dr. Francisco, left the following day and on the 14th a third brigade, headed by Dr. Lorenzo and ten nurses including Innocenta Díaz, Concepción Ibáñez, Jovita Muñiz, Concepción Sánchez, María Sánchez, Basilia Vélez, María Vélez and Antonia Zorilla. Arriving in Juárez, they found devastation and again Arizmendi had to rally for funds. By the end of 1911, the Neutral White Cross had established 25 brigades across Mexico. Arzimendi was elected as the first woman partner of the Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, but she rejected the honor. She did accept a gold medal presented to her for dedication with helping the wounded by the Gran Liga Obrera (Grand Worker League).[2]
Arizmundi was both revered for her philanthropy[2] and disliked for her leadership, at a time when women were expected to be docile and submissive. There were attacks to her leadership of the White Cross, such as when she had a photograph taken as a joke with the revolutionary crossed cartridge belts of male soldiers and soldaderas and was accused of violating the neutrality of the health organization.[4]
During the revolutionary era, she had a long-term affair with José Vasconcelos, who was married with two children; she has been described as "the first of many lovers in his life but certainly his most intense and madly beloved liaison."[5] Arizmundi fled Mexico in 1915 for the United States, briefly taking refuge in a convent in Victoria, Texas to hide from the public scandal of her relationship with Vasconcelos. She soon made her way to New York City, where the relationship ended.[6] According to one scholar, Arizmendi accompanied Vasconcelos to Lima, Peru and she broke off the relationship as he prepared to return to Mexico.[7] He wrote about her in his autobiography, La Tormenta, giving her the pseudonym "Adriana." According to historian Enrique Krauze, Vasconcelos's description of the relationship "is the most famous depiction of 'mad love' in Mexican literature."[8] When Arizmendi was in New York, Vasconcelos attempted an unsuccessful reconciliation with her.[9]
Surrounded by feminists in New York, she recognized the Anglo-oriented perspective of European and US feminists. Wishing to give a voice to Latina women, she founded a feminist magazine, Feminismo Internacional (International Feminist) and began publishing articles reflecting Hispanic versions of feminism.[10] She also co-founded with G. Sofía Villa de Buentello a cooperative union "Mujeres de la raza" (Women of the [Hispanic] Race) in 1923 with aims of uniting[11] Latina women in the struggle for rights. At the time, Latin America was seen as the next "staging ground", as suffrage had been gained in Europe and the US. Arizmendi, after her attendance at the 1922 Pan-American Conference of Women, understood Europeans and Americans did not grasp the cultural realities of Hispanic women. Villa and Arizmendi both saw matrimony and motherhood, an integral part of Latina identity, as making the experience of women "complete".[6][12] Arizmendi also saw the anti-clerical movement of the post-Revolutionary governments as an attack on a central part of her Mexican identity.[6]
Arizmendi and Villa planned a conference for the Mujeres de la raza funded by the International League of Iberian and Latin American Women. Arizmendi used her press contracts and secured coverage in The New York Times to promote the event.[6] On 2 March 1924, an extensive article about the feminist movement in Mexico entitled "New Women of Mexico Striving for Equality" carried an interview with Villa de Buentello giving an overview of their goals.[13] The meeting occurred in July, 1925 in Mexico City with Villa as President of the conference. Arizmendi served as Secretary General, but did not attend due to a difference of opinion with Villa.[14]
In 1927, Arizmendi published an autobiography with the purpose of airing her side of the affair and silencing rumors about her public life. Since Vasconcelos had published two works, Ulises Criollo and La Tormenta vilifying Arizmendi, though as a fictionalized character, Arizmendi's autobiography is a reflection upon the "double standard" women encountered.[6]
For the 25th commemoration of the organization of the White Cross in 1936 and partly because President Lázaro Cárdenas supported suffrage, Arizmendi returned briefly to Mexico. She returned to New York, but moved permanently back to Mexico City in 1938, where she died in 1949.[6]
Autobiography[edit]
Vida incompleta; ligeros apuntes sobre mujeres en la vida real M.D. Danon and Company, New York (1927) (In Spanish)
Further reading[edit]
Cano, Gabriela. Se llamaba Elena Arizmendi. Mexico City: Tusquets 2010.
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Collado Soto, Juan Rodolfo (April 2012). "Historia de la Enfermería: Se Llamaba Elena Arizmendi" (PDF). Desarrollo Cientif Enferm (in Spanish). 20 (3): 102–106. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Nance, Douglas C (2010). "Enfermeras del Hospital General de México a la Revolución" (PDF). Rev Enferm Inst Mex Seguro (in Spanish). 18 (2): 111–115. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
Jump up ^ "Factional Fight May Be Started". The Newark Advocate (Vol. 43). Newark, Ohio. 23 May 1911. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Mraz, John (2012). Photographing the Mexican Revolution: Commitments, Testimonies, Icons (1st ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 68–70. ISBN 978-0-292-73580-4.
Jump up ^ Enrique Krauze, Redeemers: Ideas and Power in Latin America, New York: Harper Collins 2011, p. 55.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Cano, Gabriela (January–June 2011). "Elena Arizmendi, una habitación propia en Nueva York, 1916–1938" (PDF). Arenal (in Spanish). 18 (1): 85–114. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Krauze, Redeemer, p. 57.
Jump up ^ Krauze, Redeemers, p. 57.
Jump up ^ Krauze, Redeemers, p. 61.
Jump up ^ Beltrán, Rosa Esther (8 October 2010). "Una biografía" (in Spanish). Vanguardia. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Mitchell, Stephanie; Schell, Patience A. (2006). The women's revolution in Mexico, 1910–1953. Lanham [Md.]: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. pp. 55–59. ISBN 978-0-7425-3730-9.
Jump up ^ Miller, Francesca (1991). Latin American Women and the Search for Social Justice. Hanover: University Press of New England. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-874-51558-9.
Jump up ^ Leland, Maria (May 2010). "Separate Spheres: Soldaderas and Feminists in Revolutionary Mexico" (PDF). Honors Thesis. Ohio State University. Retrieved 25 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Ramos Escondan, Carmen (2002). "Desafiando el Orden Legal y las Limitaciones en las Conductas de Genero en Mexico. la Critica de Sofia Villa de Buentello a la Legislacion Familiar Mexicana 1917–1927" (PDF). Segundo Epoca (in Spanish). VII: 79–102. Retrieved 25 March 2015.
Authority control
WorldCat Identities VIAF: 146998453 LCCN: no2010130525 GND: 1018612467
Categories: People of the Mexican RevolutionMexican revolutionariesMexican women's rights activistsMexican women writersMexican feminist writersWriters from Mexico CityWomen autobiographers20th-century Mexican writers1884 births1949 deaths20th-century Mexican women writers20th-century writersMexican autobiographers
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item