Letter Series | Quizalize

hysical features of Southeast Asia The physiography of Southeast Asia has been formed to a large extent by the convergence of three of the Earth’s major crustal units: the Eurasian, Indian-Australian, and Pacific plates. The land has been subjected to a considerable amount of faulting, folding, uplifting, and volcanic activity over geologic time, and much of the region is mountainous. There are marked structural differences between the mainland and insular portions of the region. Mainland Southeast Asia The mainland is characterized by a series of generally north–south-trending mountain ranges separated by a number of major river valleys and their associated deltas. In many ways these ranges resemble ribs in a fan, where the interstices are deep trenches carved by the rivers. Although the mainland as a whole is similar in a structural sense, its various geologic components and the time periods of their orogenic (mountain-building) episodes differ. Much of the region has been affected by the gradual, continuing collision of the Indian subcontinent with the Eurasian Plate over roughly the past 50 million years, an event that—with diminishing intensity from west to east—has been responsible for deforming the land. Nonetheless, mainland Southeast Asia is relatively stable geologically, with no active or recently active volcanoes and, except in the northwest and north, little seismic activity. The ranges fan out southward from the southeastern corner of the Plateau of Tibet, where they are tightly spaced. A major rib of this system extends through the entire western margin of Myanmar (Burma); describing an elongated letter S, it consists of (from north to south) the Pātkai Range, Nāga Hills, Chin Hills, and Arakan Mountains. Farther to the south the same rib emerges from beneath the sea to become the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India. Another major system extends along a straight north-south axis from eastern Myanmar east of the Salween River through northwestern Thailand to south of the Isthmus of Kra on the Malay Peninsula. It consists of a series of elongated blocks rather than one continuous ridge. The core of these blocks is granite, which has intruded into previously folded and faulted limestone and sandstone. The altitudes of the ranges diminish from above 8,000 feet (2,440 meters) on the Chinese border in the north to below 4,000 feet on the Isthmus of Kra, and the ranges are spread farther apart toward the south. The easternmost major mountain feature on the mainland is the Annamese Cordillera (Chaîne Annamitique) in Laos and Vietnam. In the portion between Laos and Vietnam, the chain forms a nearly straight spine of ranges from northwest to southeast, with a steep face rising from the South China Sea to the east and a more gradual slope to the west. The mountains thin out considerably south of Laos and become asymmetrical in form. The upland zone is characterized by a number of plateau remnants. The rather neat fanlike pattern of the mountain ranges is interrupted occasionally by several old blocks of strata that have been folded, faulted, and deeply dissected. These ancient massifs now form either low platforms or high plateaus. The westernmost of these, the Shan Plateau of eastern Myanmar, measures some 250 miles (400 km) from north to south and 75 miles from east to west and has an average elevation of about 3,000 feet. The largest of these features is the Korat Plateau in eastern Thailand and west-central Laos. This area actually is more of a low platform, which on average is only a few hundred feet above the floodplains of the surrounding rivers. It consists of a string of hills that direct surface drainage eastward to the Mekong River. The hills range in elevation from 500 to 2,000 feet, with the highest altitudes occurring near the southwestern rim. The broad river valleys between the uplands and the even wider deltas at the southernmost points contain most of the mainland’s lowland areas. These regions generally are covered with alluvial sediments that support much of the mainland’s cultivation and, in turn, most of its population centers. The most extensive coastal lowland is the lower Mekong basin, which encompasses most of Cambodia and southern Vietnam. The Cambodian portion is a broad, bowl-shaped area lying just above sea level, with numerous hill outcrops jutting above the landscape; at its center is a large freshwater lake, the Tonle Sap. To the south the river’s vast, flat delta occupies the entire southern tip of Vietnam. Outside the river deltas, the coastal lowlands are little more than narrow strips between the mountains and the sea, except around the southern half of the Malay Peninsula. The Malay Peninsula stretches south for some 900 miles from the head of the Gulf of Thailand (Siam) to Singapore and thus extends the mainland into insular Southeast Asia. The narrowest point, the Isthmus of Kra (about 40 miles wide), also roughly divides the peninsula into two parts: the long linear mountain ranges of the northern part described above give way just south of the isthmus to blocks of short, parallel ranges aligned north-south, so that the southern portion trends to the southeast and becomes much wider. In areas such as the west coast between southern Thailand and northwestern Malaysia, distinctive karst-limestone landscapes have developed. Peaks on the peninsula range from 5,000 to 7,000 feet in elevation.

Alexander Hamilton, a key figure in the founding of the United States, served as the first Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. Aaron Burr, on the other hand, was the sitting Vice President under Thomas Jefferson at the time of the duel. The animosity between Hamilton and Burr was well-documented, stemming from political disagreements and personal slights over the years. The Duel Date and Location: The duel took place on July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey, a common site for duels due to its less strict enforcement of anti-dueling laws compared to New York. Cause: The immediate cause of the duel was a series of letters and meetings between intermediaries after Hamilton allegedly insulted Burr at a dinner, which was later reported in a newspaper. Burr demanded an apology; Hamilton refused, leading to the challenge. The Event: On the morning of the duel, both men, along with their seconds and a doctor, rowed across the Hudson River to the dueling ground. The exact events are a matter of historical debate, but it is generally believed that Hamilton fired his shot into the air, adhering to a principle of honor without intent to kill. Burr, however, aimed directly at Hamilton, hitting him in the abdomen. Outcome: Hamilton was severely wounded and transported back to New York City, where he died the following day, surrounded by family and friends5. Aftermath Public Reaction: The news of Hamilton's death caused widespread grief and indignation. Angelica Schuyler Church, Hamilton's sister-in-law, expressed the communal sorrow in a letter, highlighting the shock and consternation that gripped the town5. Impact on Burr: Although Burr was never tried for the duel, his political career suffered greatly. He became a pariah in many circles and faced various legal and financial troubles in the years that followed. Historical Significance: The duel is often cited as a turning point in American political culture, highlighting the dangers of political rivalry and the need for civility in discourse. Conclusion The duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr remains a poignant reminder of the intense personal and political conflicts that shaped the early years of the United States. It underscores the tragic potential of unchecked animosity and the importance of reconciliation and dialogue in a democratic society.

MYTH The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine. FACT Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to force the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million. The British limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine when, in 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some thirty-five thousand square miles—to create a new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan’s emir. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This contradicted Article 6 of the Mandate which stated that “the Administration of Palestine…shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”2 Ultimately, the British admitted that the argument about the country’s absorptive capacity was specious. The Peel Commission said, “The heavy immigration in the years 1933–36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3 MYTH The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled. FACT The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British restricted Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country’s “absorptive capacity.” During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 83,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated. In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.5 The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6 The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within ten years and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95% of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. Jewish Immigration to Palestine7 1919 1,806 1931 4,075 1920 8,223 1932 12,533 1921 8,294 1933 37,337 1922 8,685 1934 45,267 1923 8,175 1935 66,472 1924 13,892 1936 29,595 1925 34,386 1937 10,629 1926 13,855 1938 14,675 1927 3,034 1939 31,195 1928 2,178 1940 10,643 1929 5,249 1941 4,592 1930 4,944 By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.8 The British governor of the Sinai from 1922 to 1936 observed, “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”9 The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is…due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10 MYTH The British changed their policy to allow Holocaust survivors to settle in Palestine. FACT The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain’s foreign minister Ernest Bevin replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”11 Some Jews reached Palestine, many smuggled in on dilapidated ships organized by the Haganah. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, sixty-five “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps on Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, and 28,000 remained imprisoned when Israel declared independence.12 MYTH As the Jewish population grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened. FACT In July 1921, Hasan Shukri, the mayor of Haifa and president of the Muslim National Associations, sent a telegram to the British government in reaction to a delegation of Palestinians that went to London to try to stop the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. Shukri wrote: We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development of our country as may be judged from the fact that the towns inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre, and Nazareth where no Jews reside are steadily declining.13 The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.14 The permanent Arab population increased by 120% between 1922 and 1947.15 This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states—constituting 37% of the total immigration to pre-state Israel—by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.16 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945, and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.17 The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922–1947, the non-Jewish population increased by 290% in Haifa, 131% in Jerusalem, and 158% in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42% in Nablus, 78% in Jenin, and 37% in Bethlehem.18 MYTH Jews stole Arab land. FACT Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. About 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads, and Bedouins.19 Jews went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap, and—most important—without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” He insisted that “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” Instead, he advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”20 Jews only began to purchase cultivated land after buying all the uncultivated territory. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.21 When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed, “They [the Jews] paid high prices for the land and, in addition, they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”22 In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80% were ruled invalid by the government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the government land offer.23 In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by local Palestinian leaders who were later joined by Arab volunteers led by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawuqji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.24 The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.”25 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living, and ample employment opportunities.26 It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original). —Transjordan’s king Abdullah27 Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938 (which began in April 1936 with the murder of two Jews by Arabs and the subsequent murder of two Arab workers by members of the Jewish underground28), the British high commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.29 The Jews paid exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.”30 By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 were acquired from the mandatory government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.31 Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, and the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and s sold land to the Jews. As’ad el-Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews.32 MYTH The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews. FACT In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen (“one who sacrifices himself”) to terrorize Jews. El-Husseini hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country.33 Arab radicals gained influence because the British administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they began a revolt against British rule. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later chief political officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.” The British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor (financial adviser to the military administration in Palestine 1919–23) met with el-Husseini in 1920, a few days before Easter, and told him that “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world…that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine administration but in Whitehall.” He added that “if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General [Louis] Bols [chief administrator in Palestine, 1919–20] and General [Edmund] Allenby [commander of the Egyptian force, 1917–19, then high commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.”34 El-Husseini took the colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of el-Husseini’s overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. He escaped, however, and was sentenced to ten years in absentia. A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon el-Husseini and to appoint him Mufti (a cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places). By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years. They were released a few months later.35 Samuel met with el-Husseini on April 11, 1921, and was assured “that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility.” Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left forty-three Jews dead.36 El-Husseini consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools, and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute that “no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin.”37 The Mufti’s henchmen also ensured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians who discussed cooperation with the Jews from rival clans. As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, el-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.38 The Arabs found rioting an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves but made little effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: The Arabs feared being displaced by the Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs learned they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging riots. This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: “The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy.”39 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration. The Arab fear of being “displaced” or “dominated” was an excuse for their attacks on Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor—nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords—they were motivated by economics, the radical Islamic views of the Mufti, and misunderstanding. In 1929, Arab provocateurs convinced the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today to incite violence). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews, which spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron. Again, the British administration made no effort to prevent the violence, and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, most of Hebron’s Jews had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms.40 After the riots, the British ordered an investigation, resulting in the Passfield White Paper. It said the “immigration, land purchase and settlement policies of the Zionist Organization were already or were likely to become, prejudicial to Arab interests. It understood the mandatory government’s obligation to the non-Jewish community to mean that Palestine’s resources must be primarily reserved for the growing Arab economy.”41 This meant it was necessary to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. MYTH The Mufti was not a Nazi collaborator. FACT In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti sent Hitler fifteen drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. He also asked the Axis powers to “accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the interest of the Arabs, and by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”42 In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.” He added, “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely…the Jews.” Hitler told the Mufti he opposed the creation of a Jewish state and that Germany’s objective was destroying the Jewish element in the Arab sphere.43 In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting twenty thousand Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut where he died in 1974. MYTH The bombing of the King David Hotel was part of a deliberate terror campaign against civilians. FACT British troops seized the Jewish Agency compound on June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were arrested. A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain’s restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death. In response to the British provocations, and a desire to demonstrate that the Jews’ spirit could not be broken, the United Resistance Movement planned to bomb the King David Hotel, which housed the British military command and the Criminal Investigation Division in addition to hotel guests. The Haganah pulled out of the plot and left it up to the Irgun. Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up. Three telephone calls were placed on July 22, 1946, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The call to the hotel was received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying, “We don’t take orders from the Jews.”44 As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the main part of the hotel were injured.45 For decades, the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament provided the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.46 In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which Arab leaders hailed as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.47 1 Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), p. 172

Self Check: Directions: Read and answer the following questions. Write the letter of the most appropriate answer on a piece of paper which serves as your answer sheet.

RNA translation. The genetic information in DNA is used to synthesize proteins through the processes of RNA Transcription and RNA Translation. The sequence of three-letter code words in the gene determines the sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain. RNA Transcription DNA serves as a template for the synthesis of RNA. There are 3 major types of RNA that participate in the process of proteins synthesis. 1.5% of the genome encodes for proteins via mRNA, but an unknown % of the genome codes for noncoding RNA (ncRNA)

THE FIDE LAWS OF CHESS. Introduction FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play. The Laws of Chess have two parts: 1. Basic Rules of Play and 2. Competitive Rules of Play. The English text is the authentic version of the Laws of Chess (which were adopted at the 93rd FIDE Congress at Chennai, India) coming into force on 1 January 2023. Preface. The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his/her freedom of judgement and thus prevent him/her from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view. A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess. BASIC RULES OF PLAY. Article 1: The Nature and Objectives of the Game of Chess 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board called a ‘chessboard’. The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move. A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his/her opponent’s move has been ‘made’. The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. 1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed. 1.4.2 The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game. 1.5 If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent’s king, the game is drawn (see Article 5.2.2). Article 2: The Initial Position of the Pieces on the Chessboard 2.1 2.2 The chessboard is composed of an 8 x 8 grid of 64 equal squares alternately light (the ‘white’ squares) and dark (the ‘black’ squares). The chessboard is placed between the players in such a way that the near corner square to the right of the player is white. At the beginning of the game White has 16 light-coloured pieces (the ‘white’ pieces); Black has 16 dark-coloured pieces (the ‘black’ pieces). These pieces are as follows: A white king usually indicated by the symbol K A white queen Two white rooks Two white bishops Two white knights Eight white pawns A black king A black queen Two black rooks Two black bishops Two black knights Eight black pawns usually indicated by the symbol Q usually indicated by the symbol R usually indicated by the symbol B usually indicated by the symbol N usually indicated by the symbol usually indicated by the symbol K usually indicated by the symbol Q usually indicated by the symbol R usually indicated by the symbol B usually indicated by the symbol N usually indicated by the symbol Staunton Pieces p Q K B N R 9 2.3 The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard is as follows: 2.4 The eight vertical columns of squares are called ‘files’. The eight horizontal rows of squares are called ‘ranks’. A straight line of squares of the same colour, running from one edge of the board to an adjacent edge, is called a ‘diagonal’. Article 3: The Moves of the Pieces 3.1 It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. 3.1.1 If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move. 3.1.2 A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8. 3.1.3 A piece is considered to attack a square even if this piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack. 3.2 The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands. 3.3 The rook may move to any square along the file or the rank on which it stands. 3.4 The queen may move to any square along the file, the rank or a diagonal on which it stands. 3.5 3.6 3.7 When making these moves, the bishop, rook or queen may not move over any intervening pieces. The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal. 3.7 When making these moves, the bishop, rook or queen may not move over any intervening pieces. The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal. The pawn: 3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied, or 3.7.2 on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.1 or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file, provided that both squares are unoccupied, or 3.7.3 the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece. 3.7.3.1 A pawn occupying a square on the same rank as and on an adjacent file to an opponent’s pawn which has just advanced two squares in one move from its original square may capture this opponent’s pawn as though the latter had been moved only one square. 3.7.3.2 This capture is only legal on the move following this advance and is called an ‘en passant’ capture. 3.7.3.3 When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he/she must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’. 3.7.3.4 The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. 3.7.3.5 This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate. 3.8 There are two different ways of moving the king: 3.8.1 by moving to an adjoining square. 3.8.2 by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed. 3.8.2.1 The right to castle has been lost: 3.8.2.1.1 If the king has already moved, or 3.8.2.1.2 With a rook that has already moved. 3.8.2.2 Castling is prevented temporarily: 3.8.2.2.1 if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, or 3.8.2.2.2 if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected. 3.9 The king in check: 3.9.1 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check. 3.9.2 No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check. 3.10 Legal and illegal moves; illegal positions: 3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled. 3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 –3.9. 3.10.3 A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves. Article 4: The Act of Moving the Pieces 4.1 4.2 Each move must be played with one hand only. Adjusting the pieces or other physical contact with a piece: 4.2.1 Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he/she first expresses his/her intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”). 4.2.2 Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent. 4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2.1, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing: 4.3.1 one or more of his/her own pieces, he/she must move the first piece touched that can be moved. 4.3.2 one or more of his/her opponent’s pieces, he/she must capture the first piece touched that can be captured. 4.3.3 one or more pieces of each colour, he/she must capture the first touched opponent’s piece with his/her first touched piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched that can be moved or captured. If it is unclear whether the player’s own piece or his/her opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his/her opponent’s. 4.4 If a player having the move: 4.4.1 touches his/her king and a rook he/she must castle on that side if it is legal to do so 4.4.2 deliberately touches a rook and then his/her king he/she is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3.1. 4.4.3 intending to castle, touches the king and then a rook, but castling with this rook is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his/her king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move. 4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion. 4.5 4.6 If none of the pieces touched in accordance with Article 4.3 or Article 4.4 can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move. The act of promotion may be performed in various ways: 4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival. 4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order. 4.6.3 If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured. 4.7 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of: 4.7.1 A capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his/her own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his/her hand. 4.7.2 Castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his/her hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal. If castling on this side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his/her king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move. 4.7.3 Promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board. 4.8 4.9 A player forfeits his/her right to claim against his/her opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it. 4.8. A player forfeits his/her right to claim against his/her opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 .4.9. If a player is unable to move the pieces, an assistant, who shall be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to perform this operation. Article 5: The Completion of the Game 5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his/her opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7. 5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw. 5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his/her king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7. 5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7. 5.2.3 The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game, provided both players have made at least one move. This immediately ends the game. COMPETITIVE RULES OF PLAY Article 6: The Chessclock 6.1 ‘Chessclock’ means a clock with two time displays, connected to each other in such a way that only one of them can run at a time. ‘Clock’ in the Laws of Chess means one of the two time displays. Each time display has a ‘flag’. ‘Flag-fall’ means the expiration of the allotted time for a player. 6.2 Handling the chessclock: 6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his/her move on the chessboard, shall pause his/her own clock and start his/her opponent’s clock (that is to say, he/she shall press his/her clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if: 6.2.1.1 6.2.1.2 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.2.1, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2), or the player has made his/her next move, when his/her previous move was not completed. 6.2.2 A player must be allowed to pause his/her clock after making his/her move, even after the opponent has made his/her next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. 6.2.3 A player must press his/her clock with the same hand with which he/she made his/her move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his/her finger on the clock or to ‘hover’ over it. 6.2.4 The players must handle the chessclock properly. It is forbidden to press it forcibly, to pick it up, to press the clock before moving or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9. 6.2.5 6.2.6 Only the player whose clock is running is allowed to adjust the pieces. If a player is unable to use the clock, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to perform this operation. His/Her clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to the clock of a player with a disability. 6.3 Allotted time: 6.3.1 When using a chessclock, each player must complete a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time including any additional amount of time added with each move. All these must be specified in advance. 6.3.2 The time saved by a player during one period is added to his/her time available for the next period, where applicable. In the time-delay mode both players receive an allotted ‘main thinking time’. Each player also receives a ‘fixed extra time’ with every move. The countdown of the main thinking time only commences after the fixed extra time has expired. Provided the player presses his/her clock before the expiration of the fixed extra time, the main thinking time does not change, irrespective of the proportion of the fixed extra time used. 6.4 Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.3.1 must be checked. 6.5 Before the start of the game the arbiter shall decide where the chessclock is placed. 6.6 At the time determined for the start of the game White’s clock is started.6.7. Default time: 6.7.1 The regulations of an event shall specify a default time in advance. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise. 6.7.2 If the regulations of an event specify that the default time is not zero and if neither player is present initially, White shall lose all the time that elapses until he/she arrives, unless the regulations of an event specify, or the arbiter decides otherwise. 6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect. 6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. 6.10 Chessclock setting: 6.10.1 Every indication given by the chessclock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chessclock with an evident defect shall be replaced by the arbiter, who shall use his/her best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chessclock. 6.10.2 If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks is incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall pause the chessclock immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move-counter, if necessary he/she shall use his/her best judgement when determining the clock settings. 6.11.1 If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall pause the chessclock. 6.11.2 A player may pause the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available. 6.11.3 The arbiter shall decide when the game restarts. 6.11.4 If a player pauses the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player has no valid reason for pausing the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9. 6.12.1 Screens, monitors, or demonstration boards showing the current position on the chessboard, the moves and the number of moves made/completed, and clocks which also show the number of moves, are allowed in the playing hall. 6.12.2 The player may not make a claim relying only on information shown in this manner.

Figlio di un decurione, Patricio, ancora pagano, e della cristiana Monnica, fu iscritto tra i catecumeni; compì gli studi in patria, a Madaura, poi a Cartagine: periodo da lui descritto come di abbandono alle passioni amorose. Da una concubina ebbe nel 372 un figlio, Adeodato. La lettura dell'Hortensius ciceroniano lo attrasse, diciannovenne, alla filosofia, e aderì presto al manicheismo, presentatogli come spiegazione scientifica dell'universo. Se ne fece anzi propagandista a Tagaste, dopo la morte del padre, e a Cartagine ove ottenne qualche successo come retore, e scrisse il suo primo libro, De pulchro et apto (perduto), in cui pare si sforzasse a dare veste filosofica al manicheismo, nel quale era però rimasto semplice uditore. Passò poi, abbandonando la madre, a Roma; quindi, su raccomandazione di Simmaco, come professore ufficiale di retorica (autunno 384), a Milano, ove maturò la crisi spirituale, in seguito alla quale, dimessa la concubina e rinunciando al matrimonio vantaggioso per cui insisteva Monnica, si decise ad abbracciare il cristianesimo, che gli si palesava, allora, come in pieno e perfetto accordo con la filosofia neoplatonica e la predicazione di s. Ambrogio. A Cassiciacum (probabilmente Cassago, in Brianza), dimessosi dalla cattedra, scrisse le prime opere pervenuteci (i dialoghi Contra academicos, De vita beata, De ordine e Soliloquia) e cominciò a comporre una serie di manuali delle arti liberali; fu battezzato da s. Ambrogio la notte del sabato santo (24-25 aprile) del 387. Trascorse a Roma l'inverno (Monnica morì ad Ostia nel novembre) e tornò a Tagaste, continuando, nella vita monastica, la sua attività di scrittore. Nel 391 fu ordinato sacerdote a Ippona, ove, tra la fine del 395 e il 396, fu consacrato come successore dal vescovo Valerio già prossimo a morte; lo stesso fece poi (426) A. col prete Eraclio. Le reliquie, portate in Sardegna da s. Fulgenzio e altri vescovi esuli nel 486, furono dopo l'invasione saracena trasportate, per opera del re Liutprando, a Pavia ove gli fu eretto il monumento: ma che fossero di lui quelle ritrovate nel 1695 fu contrastato dal Muratori e da altri. Nei 34 anni di episcopato lo tennero occupato, oltre le cure costanti dedicate alla sua chiesa, la copiosa corrispondenza (ci sono giunte 218 lettere di A., oltre i trattatelli in forma epistolare, e 53 dirette a lui), la predicazione (i sermoni conservati e noti finora sono più di 500), i concilî e le eresie e scismi, la lotta contro i quali assorbì grandissima parte dell'attività letteraria, che ha reso A. proverbiale come uno non solo dei più dotti e profondi, ma dei più fecondi scrittori mai esistiti. Appunto le polemiche, insieme con la conversione, l'ordinazione e la consacrazione, contrassegnano, all'ingrosso, anche periodi dello svolgimento del pensiero di lui. Con la conversione comincia la polemica contro i manichei, già accennata nei "Dialoghi di Cassiciaco" e continuata in una serie di scritti per lo più filosofico-religiosi (per es. De quantitate animae, De libero arbitrio, il libro VI De musica, De magistro, De vera religione, De utilitate credendi), in cui vediamo A. passare gradatamente dall'affermazione della superiorità essenziale della ragione sulla fede, a quella dell'utilità e ragionevolezza dell'affidarsi all'auctoritas fondata sulla rivelazione e universalmente riconosciuta, della Chiesa; ed elaborare insieme la sua caratteristica dottrina della conoscenza. La felicità, cui gli uomini aspirano, non si consegue senza il possesso della verità. Contro gli scettici, egli usa l'argomento principe: se dubito, so di dubitare, dunque di essere; se sbaglio, sono (motivo che da taluni storici della filosofia viene indicato tra gli antecedenti del dubbio cartesiano: non sfugge comunque il diverso contesto). Ma la verità va cercata in me stesso: è la dottrina neoplatonica del ritorno su sé stessa dell'anima, che, riconosciuta la mutevolezza del mondo esteriore, percepito dai sensi, e la sua propria, si avvia a ricercare la verità immutabile, per cui è vero ogni ragionamento vero, e che è Dio medesimo. I sensi, dunque, e anche le parole del maestro, non fanno se non ridestare idee, che sono già nell'anima: non però nel senso della dottrina platonica della reminiscenza, ma in quanto in interiore homine habitat veritas, parla cioè, in fondo all'anima, il Maestro interiore, il Verbo divino; nell'uomo (in interiore homine) brilla la luce del vero che dona a ciascuno le rationes aeternae, principio e fondamento di ogni giudizio. È questa la teoria detta dell'illuminazione, che, non del tutto chiarita da A., si presta a varie interpretazioni (secondo che le rationes aeternae si intendano come "idee innate", o come "categorie" del giudizio); essa si collega alla dottrina del "maestro interiore", il Verbo, il solo vero maestro: sicché l'insegnare degli uomini è solo un preparare ad ascoltare la voce del Verbo divino. Queste dottrine furono da A. mantenute anche in opere posteriori ma il primitivo entusiasmo per Platone, Plotino e i "platonici" (che, se fossero vissuti ora, - dice - si sarebbero fatti cristiani) e per i neoplatonici si affievolì col tempo. La polemica antimanichea venne continuata in altri scritti (per es. Contra Adimantum, Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti) fino al voluminoso Contra Faustum e ad altri opuscoli fino al 405 circa, poi sporadicamente in un paio di opuscoli e, in parte, nel trattatello contro tutte le eresie (De haeresibus, 428-29). L'ordinazione sacerdotale obbliga A. a spiegare al popolo i libri sacri; egli partecipa più intimamente della vita della Chiesa e viene a conoscere lo scisma che tormenta la Chiesa africana. Comincia così la polemica contro il donatismo, con l'interessante Psalmus abecedarius contra partem Donati, primo esempio degli scritti popolareggianti di A. (versi di 16 sillabe, abbandono della prosodia e metrica classica, assonanza in e), poi con una serie di opere (Contra epistolam Parmeniani, De baptismo, Contra litteras Petiliani, Contra Cresconium) fino alla grande "conferenza" di Cartagine (411; Breviculus collationis cum donatistis) quindi, con minor frequenza di scritti, sino al Contra Gaudentium (420 circa). In questa polemica, che lo portò a occuparsi dell'ecclesiologia, A. segue s. Cipriano e s. Ottato mantenendo fermissimo il principio della validità ed efficacia obiettiva (ex opere operato) dei Sacramenti, la cattolicità e l'unità della Chiesa, fuori della quale non v'è salvezza e che è corpus permixtum: ne fanno parte cioè grano e zizzania, buoni e malvagi, che soltanto Gesù Cristo ha diritto di separare nel giorno del Giudizio. Ma mentre all'inizio, e ancora nel 411, A. non voleva ricorrere ad altro mezzo che la persuasione attraverso la discussione, tuttavia, con le leggi di Onorio contro gli scismatici e di fronte alla loro ostinazione, cambiò parere: e come dalla netta distinzione tra scisma ed eresia passò a definire questa quale "scisma inveterato", così ammise la legittimità e necessità della coercizione e del ricorso all'autorità civile, fissando altresì il dovere per il sovrano cristiano di attenersi al magistero della chiesa.Ma con l'ordinazione A. si dedica anche con maggiore intensità allo studio della Bibbia: specialmente del Genesi, passando dall'interpretazione strettamente allegorica (De Genesi adversus Manichaeos, 388-90) a quella letterale, e insieme di valore filosofico (De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus), e di s. Paolo (Expositio quarundam propositionum ex Epistola ad Romanos, Epistolae ad Romanos expositio inchoata, Expositio Epistolae ad Galatas, parecchie delle questioni trattate nel De diversis quaestionibus octogintatribus). Cogliamo qui un momento importantissimo nello svolgimento del pensiero teologico di A., e oggetto di molte discussioni. Egli si è sforzato di mantenere in primo luogo la giustizia di Dio, che premia i buoni, cioè coloro che credendo si acquistano un merito, e che punisce i malvagi. Ma, dopo un lungo sforzo, A. viene a riconoscere che il momento iniziale dell'atto di fede, l'initium fidei, che è initium salutis, non è opera dell'uomo ma viene da Dio: al quale non si può tuttavia rimproverare alcuna ingiustizia, se, gratuitamente, fa grazia ad alcuni; mentre gli uomini tutti, in cui sopravvive il peccato originale, non meritano se non la condanna. Questi concetti appaiono per la prima volta con tutta chiarezza, nel primo scritto posteriore all'episcopato di A., il De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum. Frutto di questa conquista del suo pensiero, che lo induce a rimeditare sulla sua vita, si possono considerare le Confessioni (398 circa), nelle quali, altresì, sono ripresi altri due temi che lo appassionano: quello della cultura cristiana e quello dei principî che presiedono all'interpretazione della Scrittura. La prima questione è da lui affrontata sotto l'aspetto teorico nel De doctrina christiana (interrotto, ma ripreso e terminato nel 426): come anche nelle Confessioni A. è sensibile ai pericoli della cultura tradizionale, pagana, ma vuole salvarne il buono, che va assunto e fatto proprio dal cristianesimo. Così, conchiudendo una lunga controversia, A. assicura col peso della sua autorità la trasmissione della cultura antica. Ma nelle Confessioni il problema della memoria (in essa è la misura del tempo) trascina seco quello della creazione. A. la ritiene avvenuta nel tempo, anzi col tempo, dal nulla, e per tutte le cose simultaneamente, ma non allo stesso modo: ché alcune furono create da Dio non in atto e nella loro forma perfetta, ma solo in potenza, o in germe (rationes seminales, energie latenti destinate a svilupparsi nel tempo e a produrre, al momento opportuno per ciascuno, i diversi esseri). A queste conclusioni A. è portato da un nuovo studio dei primi 3 capitoli del Genesi (De Genesi ad litteram libri XII, tra il 401 circa e il 415 circa). Accanto al quale, tra le opere esegetiche, vanno ricordati il De consensu evangelistarum (400 circa), le Enarrationes in Psalmos, e i Tractatus in evangelium Iohannis, raccolte di sermoni su questi libri. Ma nelle Confessioni A. ha inserito anche un'istruzione catechetica (proprio con il commento al Genesi), affine a quella da lui data in un'altra operetta, il De catechizandis rudibus (400 circa). E il motivo della memoria, che appare nelle Confessioni, diventa importantissimo in un altro trattato su cui A. si affaticò lungo (400 circa -416 circa): il De Trinitate. L'anima è un pensiero (mens) da cui nasce una conoscenza (notitia), e nel suo rapportarsi a questa conoscenza nasce l'amore che essa si porta (amor). Nell'anima o, meglio, nella memoria, nell'intelletto e nella volontà, nella parte cioè più alta e nobile di essa, che ricorda, comprende e ama sé stessa, ma soprattutto ricorda, conosce e ama Dio, A. scorge le "vestigia" della Trinità divina. Di essa, criticando talvolta le formule di s. Ilario di Poitiers, egli mette in rilievo l'unità di sostanza, insistendo sull'uguaglianza delle tre Persone: le operazioni ad extra sono l'opera indistinta di tutte, ciò che si dice di ciascuna quanto alla sostanza, e anche alla sapienza e altri attributi, è comune, uguale, identico e numericamente uno in tutte; mentre esse si distinguono e si oppongono secondo le loro relazioni reciproche. Teoria che, chiarendo la processione dello Spirito Santo principaliter, sì, dal Padre, ma anche dal Figlio, divenne importantissima per lo svolgimento della teologia occidentale, cui A. ha legato il carattere "cristocentrico", conforme alla tendenza fondamentale del suo pensiero, aggirantesi intorno alla persona e all'opera del Cristo ed alla redenzione dell'uomo dal peccato, mercé la grazia. Intorno a questi temi scoppiò la polemica con Pelagio, già scandalizzatosi in Roma per l'invocazione delle Confessioni a Dio: da quod iubes et iube quod vis e ora rifugiatosi in Africa con il suo compagno Celestio (che, denunciato da Paolino di Milano, venne condannato nel 411 da un concilio locale, a Cartagine). Si possono distinguere in essa varie fasi: quella iniziale, in cui A. combatte ancora soltanto le dottrine, non gli uomini, che sa molto stimati (De peccatorum meritis et remissione, a Marcellino, il l. III composto dopo che A. ebbe conosciuto il commento di Pelagio a s. Paolo; De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum e, a complemento, per asserire la necessità delle opere buone accanto alla fede, De fide et operibus; nonché il De bono viduitatis, dedicato a Giuliana, madre di Demetriade, in occasione della monacazione di questa); quella della polemica diretta, provocata dalle vicende di Pelagio in Oriente fino alla condanna da parte del papa Innocenzo I (con la celebre affermazione che, dopo tanti concilî, anche Roma locuta est; causa finita est; utinam aliquando finiatur error) e, dopo il grande concilio di Cartagine (418) da papa Zosimo (De natura et gratia contra Pelagium, De perfectione iustitiae hominis, contro Celestio, De gestis Pelagii, De gratia Christi et peccato originali); quella della lotta contro i pertinaci difensori di Pelagio (De nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium comitem, Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, Contra Iulianum, e Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem, il cosiddetto Opus imperfectum, contro lo stesso Giuliano di Eclano, interrotto per la morte di A.), intesa al tempo stesso a chiarire la sua dottrina ai monaci di Adrumeto (De gratia et libero arbitrio, e De correptione et gratia, dedicati all'abate Valentino) e a combattere i "semipelagiani" della Gallia meridionale, insorti contro questi scritti (De praedestinatione sanctorum e De dono perseverantiae). Questa dottrina agostiniana del peccato originale, della grazia e della predestinazione, precisatasi ma anche irrigiditasi e spinta alle estreme conseguenze nell'ardore della polemica, si è prestata a varie e contrastanti interpretazioni. A. prende le mosse dalla condizione di Adamo, creato esente dalla morte (posse non mori, diverso da non posse mori proprio degli esseri spirituali) e dalla concupiscenza, capace quindi di non peccare (il posse non peccare, diverso dal non posse peccare degli eletti), e nella piena libertà di optare per il bene conformandosi a una ragione che aveva il perfetto predominio sui sensi, capace altresì di perseverare nel bene, grazie all'aiuto (adiutorium sine quo non) concessogli da Dio. Avendo Adamo peccato, la sua colpa si trasmise all'intero genere umano, divenuto così massa damnata; peccato di origine, che A. dimostra, fra l'altro, in base all'uso della Chiesa di amministrare agli infanti il battesimo che annulla la concupiscenza in quanto reato, ma la lascia sopravvivere actu, così che l'uomo, pur conservando il libero arbitrio, è privato di quella libertas ... quae in Paradiso fuit (Enchir. 26-27). Per poter resistere cioè alla concupiscenza, occorre ora un aiuto divino maggiore di quello dato ad Adamo: la grazia è dunque necessaria per avere la fede, e questa perché vi sia quell'amore di Dio, in quanto sommo bene, senza di che non esiste né beatitudine né vera moralità (e non vi sono pertanto vere virtù fra i pagani). Ma questo soccorso (adiutorium quo) non è concesso a tutti: Dio, senza alcuna ingiustizia, ma per un suo gratuito atto di misericordia, prepara per alcuni i mezzi, pienamente efficaci, per condurli alla salvezza cui li ha predestinati ab aeterno. Accusato dai pelagiani di manicheismo, A. tuttavia, come si vede, non considera come malvagia la stessa natura umana, e non condanna la procreazione: nel matrimonio, il male è la concupiscentia carnis; e anche questo può essere rivolto a un fine buono, la generazione dei figli congiunta alla volontà della loro rigenerazione attraverso il battesimo. Ma i bambini morti senza di questo, secondo A., non si sottraggono alla pena eterna. Poiché la trasmissione del peccato originale si spiegava più facilmente mediante la teoria secondo cui l'anima è generata, spiritualmente, da quella dei genitori (traducianismo), mentre, più conforme alla sua dottrina dell'illuminazione, era l'altra teoria, della creazione di ogni anima da Dio (creazionismo), A. rimase incerto fino all'ultimo (De anima et eius origine, 419-20). E poiché è ignoto chi siano gli eletti, la concezione agostiniana della predestinazione coincide con quella della Chiesa come corpus permixtum (v. sopra). La scossa profonda data a tutto il mondo romano dall'incursione di Alarico, le querimonie dei pagani additanti nel cristianesimo la causa di tutti i mali del mondo, indussero A. a meditare sulla storia, e a scrivere l'altra delle sue opere maggiori e più celebri dopo le Confessioni: il De civitate Dei. Nel corso della storia procedono unite le due città (Civitas Dei e Civitas terrena), nate l'una dall'amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui, l'altra dall'amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei e predestinate, la prima a regnare in eterno con Dio, l'altra a subire l'eterno supplizio. Neppure quest'opera è, in fondo, davvero sistematica; cosciente dello sviluppo del proprio pensiero, A. sembra invitare i lettori a imitarlo nello sforzo di progredire: del resto volle egli stesso correggere i suoi errori (ma anche dimostrare, specie contro i manichei, la sua fondamentale coerenza) in quella originalissima rassegna dei suoi scritti che sono le Retractationes (426-27). Va menzionato ancora, breve e bellissimo compendio della dottrina cristiana, l'Enchiridium ad Laurentium (De fide, spe, charitate, 421); e va almeno accennato il valore letterario dei suoi scritti, specie delle Confessioni. Festa, 28 agosto. L'interesse educativo di A. non è limitato ai problemi pedagogici più dibattuti dalla Patristica, e cioè all'utilizzazione della cultura pagana nella formazione dei ragazzi, ed ai modi e metodi dell'educazione religiosa. Esso si connette piuttosto ad un tema filosofico fondamentale nella sua speculazione, quello della "verità interiore" e quindi con la dottrina dell'illuminazione. Il processo educativo consiste nel trarre alla luce la verità, nel ritrovare Dio-maestro nel profondo dell'anima (Christus intus docet). Il maestro vero è quindi solo Cristo, i maestri terreni non possono far altro che stimolare la riscoperta della verità stessa che è in noi come segno della presenza di Dio. Dal punto di vista didattico A. accoglie la necessaria propedeutica delle "arti liberali", ma la cultura per sé non è indispensabile, poiché le virtù cristiane si realizzano anche al di fuori di esse. Necessaria è invece la cultura religiosa da impartire anche alle menti più rozze: nel De catechizandis rudibus Agostino parla di tale opera educativa, ponendo in rilievo la funzione fondamentale che ha in essa l'amore con cui il maestro discende al livello dell'educando (così come Cristo ha fatto per l'uomo facendosi uomo) e vivifica anche gli aspetti più elementari e consueti del fatto educativo.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes