Ancient Libraries

Michael Streich

Ancient libraries are as old as the first early Near East civilizations. Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, boasted the largest ancient library. The rise of Greece and later Rome, however, witnessed the two most significant libraries, at Pergamum and Ephesus, both in Asia Minor, which competed with and attempted to rival the great library at Alexandria in Egypt. The great libraries of Rome may have gotten their start when Sulla first carried Aristotle’s library to the city on the Tiber. Later, Julius Caesar became the patron of public libraries. Yet none matched Pergamum and Ephesus.

 

The Ancient Library at Pergamum

 

The Pergamum library was considered the second finest, after Alexandria. At its height, the library contained 200,000 volumes. Much of this success was due to the rulers of Pergamum, who were patrons of the arts and furthered the scope of the library. Under Eumenes II (197-159 BC), the library grew spectacularly, so much so that the curators of the Alexandrian Library in Egypt became concerned and placed an embargo on exported papyrus.

 

The rulers of Pergamum turned to using animal skins, “Partian leather.” The term “parchment” is directly traced to “Pergamum,” from which it was derived. Although the term “paper” may be more accurately derived from the Egyptian papyrus, Pergamum guides tell visitors that the term “paper” can be traced to the ancient city’s name. In Germany, as an example, “pergament paper” is butcher paper, thick sheets of wrapping paper that take the name from parchment paper, hence Pergamum.

 

The Pergamum library is also credited with developing the first Codex system. At the end of the Roman Republic, Marc Antony, the Triumvir of the eastern regions of Roman control, gave the library to Cleopatra. The ruins of this great library can still be found in Pergamum (the Turkish city of Bergama) beside the remnants of the Temple of Trajan and Hadrian.

 

The Ancient Library at Ephesus

 

It is fitting that the great city of Ephesus, also in Anatolia, had the third most prominent library in the Ancient Roman world. It was only one of four imperial cities to feature street lighting at night. According to Anna Edmonds, “Ephesus rivaled Rome in its magnificence.” Of the great library, Tony Perrottet writes that it was, “an architecturally unrivaled evocation of ancient time…”

 

The library was built at the end of the first century AD by Gaius Julius Aquila to honor his father Celsus, Roman Governor of that region of Anatolia. The “Celsus Library” contained over 12,000 volumes as well as the burial vault of Celsus, a singular honor since the dead were buried outside of city walls in the many necropoleis found beyond ancient city ruins.

 

Ancient Libraries Lost in History

 

As the Roman Empire sunk into eventual decay, many of the old libraries were lost. Earthquakes, barbarian invasions, and early Christians seeking to purge the land of pagan writings contributed to this loss of ancient literature and history. In Egypt, old papyri was used to teach young scribes and later discarded on garbage heaps, some of which have recently been discovered by archaeologists. Some surviving imperial correspondence alludes to documents destroyed by barbarian invasions, such as the account of Pontius Pilate’s tenure as governor of Palestine.

 

Ancient libraries attest to the literary enlightenment of emperors, kings, teachers, and the everyday citizens of the Greek and Roman world. Their presence reflects a highly developed literary tradition that transcends mere record keeping.

 

Sources:

 

Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola, Richard J. A. Talbert, The Romans From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Anna G. Edmonds, Turkey’s Religious Sites (Damko Publications, 1998) p 144.

Tony Perrottet, Royt 66 A.D. On The Trail of Ancient Roman Tourists (Random House, 2002) p 216.

“Pergamum,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, General Editor, Vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1939). 

First published in Suite101 February 22, 2009. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republication only by written permission from author.
 

Fortress of Peter and Paul, photo taken from the Winter Palace accross the Neva River 

Peter The Great: Father of the Russian Navy

Michael Streich

2009

 

In 1688, a teenage boy discovered an old wooden, one-masted ship at a royal estate in Izmailovo, near Moscow. The boy was the future Tsar, Peter the Great, and the boat would become the symbol of his passion. According to Feofan Prokopovich, as quoted by James Cracraft, “the botik…became the cause of his building a navy…” [1] By the time Peter died in 1725, the Russian navy, built on the British model, was viewed as a formidable entity in the newly aligned European spheres of powe

 

The Great Northern War and the Building of a Navy

 

James Cracraft concludes his brief summary of Peter’s military reforms by suggesting that, “…It was the navy, one way or another, that brought Peter, and then Russia, into Europe and the modern world.” [2] During the tsar’s “Great Embassy” to Europe in 1697-1698, Peter, traveling incognito, learned first hand how to build ships in the naval yards of Amsterdam and London. He also enlisted the service of hundreds of experts, professionals who would go to Russia, help him westernize, and train his own people.

 

Writing about Peter at the Dutch shipbuilding town of Zaandam, Suzanne Massie says that, “left in peace for three months, he learned how to build a frigate and received a shipbuilding certificate from the head of the dockyards.” [3] Returning to Russia, Tsar Peter ordered the building of ships to be used against Turkey at Voronezh. Later destroyed, the ill-timed Turkish War of 1710 put a stop to any southern fleet and Peter concentrated on the Swedes and the Baltic region.

 

The Baltic fleet was begun immediately after the Kronstadt naval base was completed in 1704, a year after the founding of St. Petersburg. Between 1708 and Peter’s death in 1725, Russia had built 54 ships of the line and had gained mastery of the Baltic. This was due, in part, to the Russian victory against the Swedish King Charles XII at Poltava in 1709.

 

Although the Great Northern War consumed most of Peter’s reign, the legacy was a strong Russia, usurping northern hegemony once held by Sweden ever since the end of the Thirty Years’ War. Much of this was due to Peter’s new navy which also opened greater doors for commercial relationships with Europe, notably England.

 

A Changing Europe in the late 1600s

 

Peter correctly deduced that success in every aspect of governance was tied to the building and maintaining of a navy. Creation of the Naval Academy was one aspect of preparing Russians in a competing mercantile world. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 may have marked the first phase of English maritime ascendancy, but one hundred years later the English navy was the most potent in Europe, a lesson Peter learned well. The naval wars with the Dutch under Charles II eliminated, partially, Dutch trade competition but also highlighted how far England had come as a maritime power.

 

Most certainly Peter the Great was aware of these complexities. The Russian navy was as necessary to the reform of Russia as any other attempt to westernize the land but served a far more crucial long term goals. Cracraft quotes a placard placed before Peter’s botik in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where it was briefly exhibited: “From the amusement of the child came the triumph of the man.” [4] Nicholas Riasanovsky concludes that Peter, “…bequeathed to those who followed him the first Russian shipbuilding industry…” [5]

 Sources:

[1] James Cracraft, The Revolution of Peter the Great (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003) p.50.

[2] IBID. p.53.

[3] Suzanne Massie, Land of the Firebirth: the Beauty of Old Russia (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1980) p. 92.

[4] Cracraft, p.51. [note: the botik today is in the Central Naval Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia]

[5] Nicholas A. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia 2^ND Ed., (London: Oxford University Press, 1969) p.254.

 

See also:

 

W. Bruce Lincoln, The Romanovs: Autocrats of All the Russias (New York: the Dial Press, 1981)

First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich; republishing only with author's written permission.

 Ivan "The Terrible" and Peter the Great": Contrasts and Comparisons

Michael Streich

June 2009 

The similarities between Ivan IV (the “terrible”) and Peter the Great are many. Both suffered from traumatic childhood upbringings and both ascended the Russian throne as children. Each tsar demonstrated like temperaments and both became known for external wars that increased the size and stature of Russia. Both Ivan and Peter reformed the military and attempted to secularize the Orthodox Church under state control. Each one died after killing their male heirs, initiating a “Time of Troubles” and palace revolutions.

 

Foreign Wars and Western Trade

 

Ivan’s first major war was the defeat of Kazan, asserting Russian hegemony to the Volga River and beyond. Similarly, Peter’s first conflict was geared against the Turks as he looked southward. Not as successful, however, Peter would ultimately defeat Sweden, ensuring Russian access to the Baltic Sea.

 

Ivan IV was less successful in the north, however. The Livonian War (1558-1582) produced no significant gains for Russia. Ivan’s goals included Baltic ports to facilitate trade, notably with England. Although Ivan never looked to the West in the same manner Peter did, his actions represented a first step in relationships with the emerging European nation-states.

 

Under Peter the Great, the Great Northern War provided those ports and enabled him to build St. Petersburg, his “window to the west.” The 1709 battle at Poltava, considered decisive, marked the decline of Sweden’s Charles XII. Just as Ivan IV had attempted to do unsuccessfully, Peter recruited specialists from Europe to modernize Russia.

 

Internal Reforms

 

Under Ivan IV, a reformed military resulted in an organized, standardized service, the backbone of which was Cossack cavalry and the Streltsy, a type of Musketeer force. Ironically, Peter destroyed the Streltsy during his reign after the group spearheaded a revolt against him. No doubt Peter also recalled that these same soldiers had attempted to kill him as a child when they operated under his half-sister Sophia, an ambitious and dangerous woman.

 

Peter’s military reforms resulted in a first-class European-style army, trained by European experts and using the latest weaponry available. Additionally, Peter, considered the “father of the Russian navy,” inaugurated a fleet that would enable control of the Baltic and the protection of Russian trade.

 

Both tsars reformed the Orthodox Church, seeking to bring parts of it under secular control. In all matters of reform, both Ivan and Peter worked to develop greater centralized control of the monarchy over the various elements within the country. Neither tsar trusted the nobility, having been exposed to palace intrigues. Both men frequently responded violently. Ivan IV killed his heir, Ivan Ivanovich, in a fit of rage; Peter was responsible for the death of his son Alexis, for complicity in the revolt against him.

 

The Time of Troubles

 

Upon the death of Ivan, the monarchy was plagued with years of misrule, pretenders to the throne, wars in which neighboring powers championed favorites for their own benefit, and general instability. It has rightly been called a “Time of Troubles,” ended only after the Romanov dynasty, under Tsar Michael, was proclaimed.

 

A similar period occurred in Russia after the death of Peter. Between 1725 and 1741, four rulers of dubious quality reigned. In 1741, Elizabeth I came to power, also through a palace revolution, but ruled better than her predecessors. Not until 1762 did good leadership return under Catherine II (the “Great”).

 

Assessment of Ivan and Peter

 

Despite the cruelties (historians point out that Ivan IV was no more “terrible” than contemporary European kings and princes), both tsars left Russia larger and stronger when they died. Both men achieved reform goals designed to enhance the Russian state and Russian culture. It is certainly true that the reforms of Peter the Great were more far reaching, yet this does not diminish the vision both men had.

 

Sources:

 

James Cracraft, The Revolution of Peter the Great (Harvard University Press, 2003)

Ronald Hingley, The Tsars 1533-1917 (New York: the Macmillan Company, 1968)

David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond 4^th Ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993)

First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any republication subject to written permission by author.

Ever since the Mongol invasion of Russia in 1237 and Batu’s burning of Moscow that same year, the often feuding Russian princes harbored the notion of driving the “infidel” from their lands and ending the yearly tribute paid to the khans. From the first decisive Mongol victory against the fractured Russian principalities at the Kalka River in 1222, the invader was seen as invincible. This “invincibility,” however, was enhanced more by the disparate loyalties of individual princes to a common cause than by the might of the Tatars.

 

In the late fourteenth century, Dmitri Ivanovich, Grand Prince of Moscow, would destroy the myth of Mongol invincibility at the Battle of Kulikovo Pole, adding the dimension of a Christian crusade to the growing restlessness against Mongol control. He would be called Dmitri “Donskoi” (of the Don) for his exploits and Moscow would rise to assume the position of political and religious leadership which would pave the road toward hegemony of Great Russia in the subsequent century.

 

The Russian victory at Kulikovo in 1380 was a pointed reminder that the Mongols themselves were disunified. The Mogol leader at Kulicovo, Kan Mamai, was involved in a power struggle with Khan Tokhtamysh, a protégé of Tamerlane, and the eventual victor in the struggle with Mamai. Two years after Kulicovo, Mamai would be dead. Tokhtamysh would continue to receive the tribute of Russian princes, including Dmitri of Moscow, yet the seed had been planted. Kulikovoi was not a battle for independence, but it was highly symbolic of nationalist feelings that spurred boyars and princes to further action. Chronicles of the battle compare it to the Marathon Plain. Kulikovo also had divine implications.

 

The Russian army marched to Kolomna, south of Moscow, to be joined by 70,000 from “brave Lithuania.” The Nikon Chronicle states that Dimitri’s army numbered 400,000. Another chronicle, the Zadinscina, captures the patriotic feeling: “ horses neigh in Moscow, horns sound in Kolomna, drums are beaten…glory resounds through the whole Russian land.”

 

Dmitri led his army across the Oka River and southward to the Upper Don. According to the Nikon Chronicle, the Russian army encamped at the mouth of the Lopasna River while Mamai’s forces were south of Kulikovo Pole. The Russians chose the battlefield deliberately, an area of hilly terrain which would force the Mongols to dispense with the use of their effective cavalry and thus prohibit them from enveloping the Russian positions. After the battle in such tight quarters, a Russian chronicle relates that, “…Christian bodies lie like haycocks, and the river Don flowed in blood for three days.”

  Moscow at War with the Mongols for the Soul of Russia at the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380

Michael Streich

 

On September 8^th, 1380, the birthday of the Holy Virgin, the Russian army met the Mongols. The battle was fought “from morning to noon,” the Mongol advance blinded by the sunlight reflected off Russian armor. Dmitri was severely wounded as the battle turned against the Russians. As Mongol triumph appeared certain. Prince Vladimir of Serpukov appeared, held in reserve by Dmitri. The weary Mongols retreated.

 

The Russian struggle against the “pagan Mamai” was seen as a crusade for Orthodoxy. James H. Billington, in The Icon and the Axe, asserts that the chronicles of Kulikovo are more decisive in their attempt to portray Dmitri’s struggle in terms of a crusade against infidels rather than military gain. Kulikovo was also an important step in the ascendancy of Moscow as the chief repository of power once Mongol influence was eradicated.

 

Final independence from the Mongols would not occur until the reigns of Ivan the Great and Ivan IV (the Terrible). Kulikovo, however, proved that the Mongols could be beaten and that invincibility was a myth.

Copyright owned by Michael Streich; republication only with written permission of author.

 

 Teaching ALL of American History

Michael Streich (Written & Published in 2012)

For teachers of American History, the task of covering all the material from the period of “discovery of the new world” to contemporary events is daunting and nearly impossible. In most cases, the curriculum is dictated by mandated state standards and courses of study that attempt to touch on key events and concepts detailed in 30 to 35 chapters of text.

 

The inclination and temptation to spend more time on favorite eras is checked by performance evaluations that gauge how well state requirements are addressed and how standardized test scores validate those requirements. Innovative strategies, however, might satisfy overall state standards as well as allow a greater degree of classroom freedom in terms of teaching key material.

 

Teaching American History using a Thematic Approach

 

Thematic treatments can still be chronological in order to be effective. For example, a semester theme focusing on expansion can analyze and correlate the following chronological events:

 

Colonial expansion up to the Mississippi

Beginning of the Westward Movement

Manifest Destiny

Expansionism in Foreign Affairs – 19^th Century

Imperialism

Global expansion through the World Wars

Cold War military and economic expansion

 

Other thematic approaches might cover the following areas:

 

The Move toward Democratic Ideals and Civil Rights

Using Court Cases to Teach U.S. History

American Innovations, Industrialism, and the Urban Nation

 

Mini Sections that Focus on Mico Historical Events

 

Another creative and chronological focus develops key or watershed movements in American History as a core focus from which ancillary topics are extrapolated. In this approach, the core focus becomes the center of study as well as the primary learning outcome.

 

If the core focus is “British tax policies after 1763 directly caused the American Independence Movement,” ancillary proofs can be taken from several actual events, determined by their ultimate impact on the core focus:

 

The Stamp Act

The Quartering Act

The Declaratory Act

The Boston Tea Party and subsequent Coercive Acts

Lexington and Concord

 

Rather than spending an inordinate amount of time on the 1763 Proclamation Line, the Townshend Acts, the Boston Massacre, and the Sons of Liberty, more pivotal events tell the story quickly without sacrificing content.

 

Begin American History at 1800

 

In North Carolina, the Revolutionary War and the birth of the nation is part of the sophomore-level civics course, enabling teachers of juniors to begin studies in the 19^th century and thereby have a better opportunity to meet state standards that require covering up to and including the 21^st Century.

 

Inevitably, however, significant problems exist:

 

Juniors have difficulty recalling curricula details from one semester to the next if interrupted by long summer breaks

Transfer students from out-of-state districts may have never been taught the earlier material

Even the best attempts of honest coverage results in “snap-shot” lesson plans that conform to a detailed history text.

 

Teaching American History from Selected Documents

 

This approach has many advantages. Using selected documents still maintains a chronological approach and it introduces students to primary source documents. Original source documents take studying and analysis to a higher level of critical thinking.

 

The singular negative in this approach rests with a teacher or instructor not fluent enough in the discipline to provide background information when needed or to make necessary connections between those documents that highlight similar themes. These points to a teacher enslaved by a publisher’s wrap-around-teacher edition of the text and the endless power point presentations that offer slightly more than a generic treatment of the material.

 

Worst Case Scenario

 

The worst case is usually walking into an American History class in March and finding that the American Civil War has just ended. Students in such classes never hear about World War I and never reach Vietnam under President Johnson. Such situations are found more in non-public schools where state standards are either not applied or vastly tweaked to satisfy the interests of individual teachers.

 

The Call for History Accountability

 

Since 2000, American elections have become more volatile and divisive within society. During the 2008 presidential election, young voters were enticed by Barack Obama’s message of change and voted in great numbers. Voting, however, correlates to knowledge of American History that is at the very least passable.

 

Unless educators develop innovative ways to teach the full gamut of American History in a meaningful way, employing strategies to ensure realistic student outcomes, standardization and “bubble-sheet” exams will continue to demonstrate that many American high school graduates know very little about their own history.

2021

The above reflections are even more important in the current pandemic crisis, which has all but eliminated in-person instruction and subjected most students to the deadening daily impact of "remote" learning. At the same time, those clamoring to remove statues and other public memorabilia resulting in an erasure of American History will damn an entire generation who may never know the truths of the past, good or bad.

 Economics of the Boston Tea Party and the Tea Tax

Michael Streich

Following the partial repeal of the Townshend Revenue Acts in April 1770, Parliament, following the recommendation of King George III, maintained the tax on tea, which would be paid by the American colonists without complaint until the Boston Tea Party turned tea into the “beverage of traitors.” The tax on tea, however, began in 1660 with the passage of the first Navigation Acts and was amended numerous times over the next 100 years. Parliamentary actions involving the East India Company, nonimportation agreements, and duty-free tea only hurt tea smugglers whose illegal tea imports after November 1773 were threatened.

 

Fluctuations in the Tea Tax Prior to 1767

 

Tea was a commodity that could only be imported into the American colonies on British ships coming from England. English tea originated in India where the East India Company facilitated tea cultivation and exportation. Tea entered the American colonies through New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. At the time of the Tea Party, Boston received the largest amounts of English tea, over-taking New York.

 

Prior to 1767, the taxes on tea were prohibitive, encouraging widespread smuggling. Some scholars suggest that much of the smuggled tea was tied to the Netherlands. Other historians, however, dispute this, suggesting that no solid evidence exists linking Dutch East Indies ports to illegal foreign tea imports into the colonies.

 

The importation of foreign tea was always subject to higher taxation. In 1711, for example, legal tea importation required a duty of four shillings per pound versus seven shillings per pound of foreign tea. Additionally, because the tea tax rose several times between 1660 and 1767 and was prohibitive, widespread smuggling of foreign tea occurred. Smuggling has been tied to many of the leading Northeast merchants of the period, including John Hancock.

 

The Ill-Fated Path toward the Boston Tea Party

 

Although the Townshend Revenue Acts were repealed, the threepence duty on tea was retained. For over two years, American colonists paid the tax without complaint. In 1773, however, Parliament exempted the East India Company from any duties on tea imported into the American colonies and allowed the company to ship tea directly to the colonies rather than through England.

 

The preferential treatment of the East India Company was tied to its precarious financial situation; the company was teetering on bankruptcy. Several board members held high positions in the British government. The East India Company already held a monopoly east of the Cape of Good Hope. Exempting the company from import duties, however, would severely undercut smuggling. English tea imports had already been decreased by Parliament to ten shillings per pound. Between 1763 and 1767, tea imports to the colonies averaged 328,125 pounds.

 

Colonial Reaction

 

The response of colonial agitators like Samuel Adams was predictable, given his letters or correspondence and public speeches. The imminent arrival of the English ship Dartmouth into Boston harbor, laden with hundreds of chests of tea, provided the object lesson Adams and the Sons of Liberty needed. On board the ship were 90,000 pounds of tea (some historians dispute this figure, accepting lesser amounts beginning at 35,000 pounds) valued at 10,000 English pounds sterling.

 

In mid-December 1773 at least fifty members of the Sons of Liberty – including Paul Revere, boarded the Dartmouth and destroyed the tea, tossing the chests into Boston harbor. They dressed as Indians, supposedly representative of the freedom embodied in the Native American, according to writer Robert Harvey. Similar actions took place in New York where the cargo of tea aboard the Nancy was destroyed.

 

Propaganda Effect of the Boston Tea Party

 

Like the Boston Massacre, the tea party was used to further the cause of Revolution. It did not help that Parliament overreacted. Robert Harvey states that, “…the goal of this huge destruction of property was plainly to goad the British government, so inept for so long, into action. This time the Sons of Liberty succeeded.” Americans stopped drinking tea and the tea party became an iconic event demonstrating the desire to stop immoral and illegal taxation.

 

References:

 

Oliver M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951)

Robert Harvey, “A Few Bloody Noses” (Overlook Press, 2002)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich