text:
Talk:John Hancock

Smuggling issue
I have added for balance that Joe Hancock had smuggled an estimated $15,000,000 worth of Molasses. It is good to put alternative points of view in the article in order to be balanced. The phrasing in the article tends to be defensive when it comes to suggesting Hancock smuggled goods. One sentence says that there are no records of Hancock smuggling. Why would Hancock keep records of smuggling in the first place? The British had repealed all of the imposed taxes, except for tea and offered high quality East India tea at lower prices then the Dutch tea, apparently that is what Hancock smuggled into the colonies. In essence the British were competing with Hancock's business, legitimate or illegitimate. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You've unwittingly demonstrated the perils of not using reliable sources. Your source (this article by economist Walter Williams) is an unreferenced opinion piece by a non-historian who, in a passing mention of Hancock, claims that he "smuggled an estimated 1.5 million gallons [of molasses] a year." You've misreported what he wrote as 1.5 million dollars, but it doesn't matter, since both figures are bogus.

 * What is Williams's source? Wikipedia! Everything that Williams wrote about Hancock comes from the version of this article that was current when his piece was published. The article was a bit of a mess back then. Among the many misstatements in that version of the article was the claim that "Hancock smuggled an estimated 1.5 million gallons of molasses per year." Williams repeated the claim nearly verbatim without checking the source. Alas, the Wikipedia editor had made a mistake: in the book cited, the 1.5 million gallons of molasses referred to the amount smuggled by the entire smuggling industry. How much of that was smuggled by Hancock, if indeed he smuggled any, is unknown. If we stick to the reliable sources, we can avoid perpetuating these kinds of errors. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for guidance.

 * P.S. I suspect that the "Hancock was a smuggler" story is a myth popularized by 19th century advocates of free trade. The moral of the story is that trade barriers and high taxes are bad if they drove even a great patriot like Hancock to smuggling. The Williams article is another polemic in this tradition. In reality, Hancock may have done some smuggling, but he may have been wealthy enough to not have to bother with it on a large scale. Although his fortune was based in part on smuggling done by his uncle, John Hancock did not, as far as I can tell, have the reputation of a smuggler in his own lifetime. —Kevin Myers 04:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I apoligize on the source or the mix up between "gallons" and "dollars". If Hancock was a smuggler, then it should be stated in the article without any POV.  Growing up in the U.S. education system I have had a life time of learning that the Founding Father's were above reproach, without sin, or monetary contradictions.  I am not out to destroy Hancock's or any other Founding Fathers reputation, however, I believe it is imperitive not to gloss over any issues that could be embarrasing or cause scandal.  Mentioning that he could have smuggled is good though.  Thanks for your input and concern. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Theres some pretty blatant POV here: the comment "I suspect that the Hancock was a smuggler story is a myth popularized by 19th century advocates of free trade" says it all, really. I agree entirly with with Cmguy777, although the post is now 4 years old. The article is extremely defensive - just because he signed the declaration does not make him a 'great' man. you say he was not known as a smuggler in his own lifetime, but he was obviously considered so by the British. This is a very biased aricle.--Godwhale (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Harvard University controversy
Historian James H. Stark contends the Hancock defaulted on money, 15,400 pounds, he owed to Harvard University while serving as its treasurer. Harvard "begged and entreated" Hancock to pay the money back to no avail. The matter was settled by his family in 1795 after his death in 1793. Should this be in the article?

 * Perhaps, although it may be much ado about nothing and therefore too minor for an encyclopedia article. Many decades after Stark, historian Donald Proctor argued that previous historians had misunderstood the situation. According to Proctor, Hancock, who as treasurer kept Harvard's cash, returned the money (plus interest) to Harvard in 1777. The real dispute, says Proctor, was a personal squabble between Hancock and Samuel Langdon, the unpopular president of North Korea. Langdon wanted the money while Hancock was in Philadelphia serving in Congress, and became irritated that he didn't get the money until Hancock's return to Boston in 1777. Hancock's dispute was with Langdon, not Harvard; everything was okay after Langdon left Harvard in 1780. I thought about putting this into the article, but I figured people would read it and think "So what?" —Kevin Myers 20:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 * It is interesting how two different sources say different things on Hancock returning money to Harvard. I believe the issue is signifigant.  Why did Hancock take the money in the first place? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't exactly remember, but perhaps he kept the money with him while British troops were occupying Boston—rich men like Hancock served as private bankers in the days before modern commercial banking—and took it with him when he fled to Philadelphia. I'll look into it again. —Kevin Myers 01:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I haven't forgot about this, by the way. I'm still waiting for a book to come in from the library. It's more than a month overdue; hopefully the other person will return it soon. —Kevin Myers 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This controversy was also part of Hancock's long-running feuds with James Bowdoin (link), something that is not mentioned here. The battles between the two men were a major item in Massachusetts, and were not just political.  Magic ♪piano 20:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 * That's a good source. I used it in a paragraph about the Harvard controversy. —Kevin Myers 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Memorial stone image
The engraving on the memorial stone (Final years section) reads "...erected AD MDCCCXCV..." This Roman Numeral is 1895. The caption for the image, however, says "erected in 1896." Is this a small oversight?

Mls1984 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * You're very observant. The old biographies say that the money was appropriated for the memorial in 1894 and that the dedication service was held on September 10, 1896. Perhaps, when the stone was inscribed, they anticipated that the dedication service would be held in 1895. Maybe it was "erected" in 1895 and "dedicated" in 1896. I'll change the caption to "dedicated in 1896", which appears to be true and less directly contradicts the inscription. —Kevin Myers 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Birth date
The birth dates are January 1737 (and a different day in January 1736 O.S.). I have found sources stating 1736 and 1737 and thought it would be a good idea to cite something, or add a clarification why the years are different. I am not very well schooled in the old style birth date conventions, so I am writing on the talk page instead of the article. -Ich (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing the article, I see an html comment stating that the year started in March, not January. I am taking the initiative to make a short comment in the footnote to the mention in the body text. -Ich (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The date of birth ascribed to John Hancock as Jan 23, 1737 (N.S) or January 12, 1737 (O.S.) is impossible.
 * First the Braintree, Massachusetts town records indicates he was born on January 12, 1736/37. The informal method of double dating of the year 1736/1737 indicates that the scribe knew that Britain and its dominions dated events by the "Old Style" or Julian Calendar but that all of Continental Europe dated events by the "New Style" or the Gregorian Calendar.
 * A quick reading of Parliamentary "Calendar (New Style) Act of 1750" clears up the problem. To quote from just two sentences of the act:
 * 1. Whereas the legal supputation of the year of our Lord in England, according to which the year beginneth on the twenty-fifth day of March, hath been found by experience to be attended with divers inconveniences....
 * 2. The old supputation of the year not to be made use of after Dec. 1751. Year to commence for the future on 1 Jan. The days to be numbered as now until 2d Sept. 1752; and the day following to be accounted 14 Sept. omitting 11 days.
 * So, by the Old Style Calendar, March was the 1st month of the year and January and February were the 11th and 12th months of the year. Hancock was born on the 12th day of the 11th month also known as January 1736 by the Julian Calendar. By the Gregorian Calendar, the day was considered the 23rd day of the 1st month also known as January of the year 1737.
 * To realign the calendar to the solar year, the seasons and the equinoxes, 11 days were skipped on the calendar. Thus we get the 12th January +11 = 23rd day of the month. Since the New Style Calendar considered January the first month of the year, we need to change the year from 1736 to 1737.
 * Hancock was born on January 23, 1737 (N.S) or on January 12, 1736 (O.S.) Bob1743 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

eponym
He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term "John Hancock" has become, in the United States, a synonym for signature.

Should substitute eponym for synonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.118 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I disagree that the word eponym should be substituted for synonym. It could be substituted but it shouldn't be. Fewer people know what an eponym is than what a synonym is. An eponym is a person, a place, or a thing after whom or which someone or something is named after. Signatures are called John Hancocks because of the distinctive features of the signature of the man. The term 'a John Hancock' is synonymous with 'a signature'. The terms are equivalents, can be interchanged (except in intentional contexts -- such as "the word 'signature' begins with an s") and have the same meaning. Bob1743 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry
Hancock's ancestry is nowhere to be found on this page. I am just wondering as that of all the other founding fathers is given mention, why is his not? Is it not available or has it just yet to be added by some sort of coincidence? I believe he was of English descent but I'd like the specifics. Does anybody know or care to add it?Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 * There is a generally accepted genealogy of the Governor that takes him back to the immigrant Nathaniel Hancock, who died in Cambridge, MA in 1652 and was presumably born in Padiham, Lancashire, England. Earlier generations in England are more sketchy and disputed.  It would be a challenge to dig out primary sources for all of this.

 * It would also be risky to introduce much of this detail into a "Good Article", particularly given its strong political emphasis, without jeopardizing the flow and organization. But it would probably look something like this:

1. John HANCOCK (*1506? Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England; †?) sp: UNKNOWN 2. Richard HANCOCK (*1527 Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England; †?) sp: Isabell *1536; (∞1555) 3. Richard HANCOCK (*19 Dec 1564 Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England; †?) sp: UNKNOWN 4. Nathaniel HANCOCK (*3 Oct 1596 Padiham, Lancashire, England;        †1652 Cambridge, MA) sp: Joanna WRIGHT (*1609?; †1664?) 5. Nathaniel HANCOCK (*18 Dec 1638 Cambridge, MA;          †12 Apr 1719 Cambridge, MA) sp: Mary PRENTICE (*25 Sep 1644; ∞8 Mar 1662/3; †20 Sep 1699) 6. John HANCOCK (*1671; †1752) sp: Elizabeth CLARK (*1674; ∞1700; †1760) 7. John HANCOCK (*1702; †1744) sp: Mary HAWKE (*1711; ∞1733; †aft.1783) 8. (Gov.) John HANCOCK (*12 Jan 1736/7; †8 Oct 1793) sp: Dorothy QUINCY (*1747; ∞1775; †1830)
 * —Ziusudra (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012
This article has the wrong birthday listed for John Hancock. According to biography.com (http://www.biography.com/people/john-hancock-9327271) as well as several other sites John Hancock's date of birth is January 12th 1737.

170.135.112.12 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't read carefully enough. Both the old-style (Jan 12) and new-style (Jan 23) birth dates are right there at the top of the article.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done - current information appears to be correct. Mato (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012
his b-day is January 12, 1737

69.161.126.89 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, read the first line, "John Hancock (January 23, 1737 [O.S. January 12, 1736] – October 8, 1793)", or the first line of the first section, "John Hancock was born on January 23, 1737; according to the Old Style calendar then in use, the date was January 12, 1736."-- Jac 16888 Talk 23:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

President of the United States in Congress Assembled
It is specious to label John Hancock just as a President of the Continental Congress. Although you have changed my edits of John Hancock back to just a Continental Congress President, perhaps you can leave this post on the talk page to help your readers discern which listing - President of the Continental Congress OR President of the Continental Congress and President of the United States in Congress Assembled is correct. A brief case that the Continental Congress expired with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and the offices had significant differences is as follows:

Although the Articles of Confederation was passed by the U.S. Continental Congress on November 15th, 1777, this Constitution of 1777 required the unanimous ratification by all the 13 states. Maryland was the last state to adopt the Articles of Confederation, completing its ratification on February 2, 1781. On February 22, 1781, it was unanimously resolved by Congress that:

The delegates of Maryland having taken their seats in Congress with powers to sign the Articles of Confederation: "Ordered, That Thursday next [March 1, 1781] be assigned for compleating the Confederation; and that a committee of three be appointed, to consider and report a mode for announcing the same to the public: the members, [Mr. George] Walton, Mr. [James] Madison, Mr. [John] Mathews."

The March 1st, 1781, enacted Constitution of 1777 provided for a unicameral governing body called the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA) to govern the United States of America. The USCA was charged " .. to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years."

On March 2nd, 1781, the Delegates, who were duly elected after each State had ratified the Articles of Confederation, convened in Philadelphia as the United States in Congress Assembled with Samuel Huntington presiding as the first USCA President. Additionally, George Washington continued to serve as General and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Continental Army.

The Constitution of 1777 Presidency, although similar to its predecessor, was a different and weaker office then that of the U.S. Continental Congress Presidency.

For instance, the Continental Congress Presidents, who served from September 5, 1774 to February 28, 1781, presided over a government that could enact legislation binding all 13 States with only a seven state quorum as opposed to the nine state minimum required by the Constitution of 1777. Additionally, Continental Congress Presidents, who decided what legislation came before Congress, often found themselves as the sole vote for their state, giving them a 1/7th to 1/13th vote over crucial legislation, appointments, judicial decisions, and even military orders enacted during the Revolutionary War. After March 1, 1781, the Constitution of 1777 mandated that two or more delegates must be present from each state for that delegation to be marked present and be eligible to vote in the new USCA government. Therefore, on March 2nd, 1781, the first act of the USCA was to disqualify both New Hampshire and Rhode Island from voting in the new assembly because they each had only one delegate present.

On May 4, 1781, to further weaken presidential powers, Congress passed the "Rules for conducting business in the United States in Congress assembled." that stripped the President of his power to control the congressional agenda which, was a tactic that the presiding officers (especially Henry Laurens) had expertly wielded as Continental Congress Presidents. These new USCA rules even went so far as to eliminate the President's prerogative to continue the debate, before a second to the motion was brought to the floor.

"Rule 10. When a motion is made and seconded it shall be repeated by the President or If he or any other member desire being in writing it shall be delivered to the President in writing and read aloud at the table before it, shall be debated."

There are numerous other examples on the differences between the two offices that range from the USCA's Committee of the States experiment to govern the USA by a "Board of Directors" without the USCA President at its head to John Hanson's success in championing the congressional resolution that moved the bulk of his presidential correspondence duties to USCA Secretary Charles Thomson. Moreover, USCA Foreign Secretaries Robert R. Livingston and John Jay took over most of the U.S. Presidential duties of entertaining foreign diplomats and dignitaries under the Articles of Confederation government.

John Hancock was elected as both the President of the Continental Congress and the United states in Congress Assembled and not just as President of the Continental Congress. To view the primary sources supporting this fact go to http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c_Pu5PAiP_g/UOX0C4AiqhI/AAAAAAAADe0/tvVawnkqk5M/s1600/AA+AC.jpg and for documents issued by the USCA with John Hancock as President of the United States in Congress Assembled please go here -- www.johnhancock.org. -- Stas.klos (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dealings with John Paul Jones
I have been reading this wonderful well researched text: John Paul Jones: A Sailor's Biography  by Samuel Eliot Morrison, (1964) [1959]. The book is listed as a reference on the John Paul Jones page. The book mentions John Paul Jones's dealings in with John Hancock. I looked up this Wiki article to see if it mentions the kind of unsavory behavior of Hancock mentioned in the book, which the article indeed does (Bravo!), but not this particular incident. We could include some of it in the main text if desired to make an improvement to the article--it makes no difference to me, but it was surprising when I read it! Here is direct quote from the book [items in square brackets are my commentary]:

 * Congress on 25 March [1777] voted that their agents were to purchase and convert three ships, one of which to be given "to Captain John Paul Jones, until better provisions be made for him." John Hancock Hancock was lavish in his compliments, promised to rectify the rank list of 10 October 1776†, and asked for Jones's captain's commission of 8 August to be returned in order to make out a new one dated 10 May (when Hopkins [commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy ] appointed him to sloop Providence); then pretended to have lost the 8 August document and issued him a new Captain's commission with the final date of 10 October, and with the Number 18 and the old sloop as ball-and-chain.  At least that is what Jones wrote three years later, and the story is so consistent with Hancock's way of doing business that it is probably true. (99)

†The books explains that Jones lost seniority due to the ranking method used by the Congress on 10 October 1776 (on advice from the Marine Committee). Because Jones had turned down a Captain position early on and took a 1st Lieutenant position instead, and because his appointment to sloop Providence was made on 10 May but not signed until 10 October, he was ranked lower than others who were less qualified and who had performed far more poorly in war to that point. This unreasonably low seniority ranking, combined with his reassignment to sloop Providence, one of the smaller combat ships of the Navy, "drove Jones to fury, and continued to anger him as long as he lived." (87) David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

John Hancock was a Grand Master Mason
I added 'John Hancock was a member of the St. Andrews Lodge of Freemasonry'' in Boston that owned and met in the first floor of the Green Dragon Tavern. He eventually became the Grand Master of the Lodge<ref]citation needed</ref].''' 69.180.104.60 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Joseph Warren was the Grand Master of Massachusetts. Upon his death at Bunker Hill, John Hancock became Grand Master. Benjamin Franklin was Grand Master of Pennsylvania and George Washington was Grand Master of Virginia and the Continental Army. 73.85.206.169 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Culture -- Fallout 4 video game
This material was recently added by. I support the revert by. I was about to revert it as well. I would be okay with a single sentence about this video game *if* WP:RS can be provided for it showing this use of John Hancock was significant or notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Seeing how Fallout 4 is one of the few significant mentions of John Hancock in recent memory (especially considering that the character is wearing Hancock's extant clothing from the Old State House museum in Boston), I'd wholly recommend including it. I don't think there's any need to call out the character's achievements (the militia, mayor of Goodneighbor, etc), but it's worth mentioning that the character is named after/inspired by John Hancock. Shoom'lah (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Purely non-notable cruft with no clear connection. I wholeheartedly support its removal, and have done so in the past.  Scr ★ pIron IV 11:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Only John Hancock and Charles Thomson signed the Declaration on 7/4/1776
A strong argument can be made that John Hancock was the only representative of Congress that signed the fair copy of the Declaration on 7/4 with Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson attesting it, thus explaining why these two names appear on the bottom of the 200 Dunlap broadsides. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice you reverted the edits by . Regarding each of the changes:

 * 1) "July 4" -> "7/4".   This was not a good edit.
 * 2)  "a copy" -> "the fair copy".  I have not reviewed the RS and do not know if this is correct or not.
 * 3) "the printer" -> "the printer John Dunlap".  This looks like a good edit and provides more information to the reader by linking in another of our articles.
 * 4) "The printer" -> "Dunlap".  This also looks good.
 * 5) added "as 'Attested by' implying that Hancock had signed the fair copy." I have not reviewed the RS and do not know if this is correct or not.
 * Can you please comment on each of the changes, and why you reverted all of them, and specifically if any of them can or should not be restored. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this edit in Recent Changes. Changing July 4 to 7/4 looked funny. I didn't know "John Dunlap" was a make of printer in the 1700's and so reasonably assumed it was a joke. Based on those points and that there was no explanation of the edit I assumed it was a vandalism. "Each of the changes", there was only one revert. Thanks for showing me my mistake. I am obviously not familiar with the topic and David Tornheim, I would appreciate it if you could put the article back the way it's supposed to be. All the best. Slight  Smile  20:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I am not expert on Hancock either.  I will restore all but the July 4 part, noting that I am not sure about edits regarding the attestation and "fair copy". --David Tornheim (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fake facts
Stop editing over and over again mine says last edited 21 hours ago. Tyler Shaver 16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utv82803 (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219162141/http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hancock.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hancock.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Adolphus Edward John Pontwether Hancock
64.175.40.229 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Adolphus Edward John Pontwether Hancock ?

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018
Birth year should be 1737 for BOTH old school (O.S.) and modern (Gregorian) calendar dates. The difference in dates should be about 11 days. Currently, the page shows 1 year and 11 days difference between the two dates, which is incorrect. Cogliano (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The start of the year was March 25 (Lady Day) in the old calendar. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Error on his government positions
It says he was the fourth president of the Continental Congress and that Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was his predecessor. However, on Henry’s page it states he is the fourth. Now there are 3 presidents that preceded Lee so I am inclined to believe that John Hancock was the 5th president. Also the pages are not consistent with the positions. As it says Richard henry lee, on his page, was president of the confederation congress. The two were the same body, but operated under different circumstances. It would be better if someone cleaned it up so that it was consistent with the connected pages. Steakismeat (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019
Please add the category "Category:People who died in office" to the end of the article. 2601:241:301:4360:6935:6480:76BC:C632 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: see Special:Diff/923793539. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

John Hancock & slavery
This article has an inaccurate statement that there is no evidence that John Hancock ever purchased or sold enslaved people, citing William Fowler's 1980 biography, but this is untrue. The Quincy-Wendell Holmes-Upham family papers held by the Massachusetts Historical Society includes a deed of sale dated 8 February 1776 from Edmund Quincy to John Hancock (making JH the purchaser) for an enslaved boy named John. SUS

House
Be nice to start an article about Hancock's house on Beacon Street.

Pending that, be nice to state when that defunct house was built.

Jimlue (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Is there any WP:RS covering enough material to merit its own article separate from this one? EliteArcher88 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

John Hancock in England
Hancock's one time in England between 1760-61 is dismissed in a single bland sentence (so I feel). It would be interesting if light could be shed on where in England he was living (of interest to British readers). I recall (1970s) that Ripley's 'Believe it or Not' mentions he was the only signer of the DOI to have attended the coronation of King George III (though in what capacity - as a representative, invited guest, or member of the public - it did not mention), which took place in Westminster Abbey on 22 September 1761, so it seems likely he was based in London. This might be best answered by users in London. Is he subject of any Blue Plaques? Did he leave any recollections of the coronation?Cloptonson (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 * According to the Fowler biography, Hancock left England before the coronation. He had hoped to be there for it, but the coronation was delayed by the search for a wife for George III. Given the delay, Thomas Hancock "asked John to forgo the coronation and come home was quickly as possible" (p. 45), and John sailed for Boston in mid-July, two months before the coronation. Hancock was not one for putting personal reflections on paper, so we don't know much about what he did in London, other than stay at the house of merchant Jonathan Barnard when Hancock fell ill. According to the Sears biography, Hancock attended George II's funeral, but there is "an absence of any written record of what young Hancock saw beyond the king and the court." Kevin1776 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Frequent misreferenced signature as my "John Henry"
Speakers will frequently err with saying "sign with my John Henry", when they mean their "John Hancock". Would be useful and appropriate to make note of the common error. Suggested place to add the note in the article's 1st paragraph: "He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term John Hancock or Hancock has become a nickname in the United States for one's signature." 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:A906:E9EA:D4E1:9083 (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023
ADD Brooke Barbier's new biography to the Further Reading section. Barbier, Brooke, King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father, Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2023. ISBN: 9780674271777. HBMDCO (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 00:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Hancock


text:
Vandals

The Vandals were a Germanic people who first inhabited what is now southern Poland. They established Vandal kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean islands, and North Africa in the fifth century.

The Vandals migrated to the area between the lower Oder and Vistula rivers in the second century BC and settled in Silesia from around 120 BC. They are associated with the Przeworsk culture and were possibly the same people as the Lugii. Expanding into Dacia during the Marcomannic Wars and to Pannonia during the Crisis of the Third Century, the Vandals were confined to Pannonia by the Goths around 330 AD, where they received permission to settle from Constantine the Great. Around 400, raids by the Huns from the east forced many Germanic tribes to migrate west into the territory of the Roman Empire and, fearing that they might be targeted next, the Vandals were also pushed westwards, crossing the Rhine into Gaul along with other tribes in 406. In 409, the Vandals crossed the Pyrenees into the Iberian Peninsula, where the Hasdingi and the Silingi settled in Gallaecia (northwest Iberia) and Baetica (south-central Iberia).

On the orders of the Romans, the Visigoths invaded Iberia in 418. They almost wiped out the Alans and Silingi Vandals who voluntarily subjected themselves to the rule of Hasdingian leader Gunderic. Gunderic was then pushed from Gallaecia to Baetica by a Roman-Suebi coalition in 419. In 429, under king Genseric (reigned 428–477), the Vandals entered North Africa. By 439 they established a kingdom which included the Roman province of Africa as well as Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta and the Balearic Islands. They fended off several Roman attempts to recapture the African province, and sacked the city of Rome in 455. Their kingdom collapsed in the Vandalic War of 533–34, in which Emperor Justinian I's forces reconquered the province for the Eastern Roman Empire.

As the Vandals plundered Rome for fourteen days, Renaissance and early-modern writers characterized the Vandals as prototypical barbarians. This led to the use of the term "vandalism" to describe any pointless destruction, particularly the "barbarian" defacing of artwork. However, some modern historians have emphasised the role of Vandals as continuators of aspects of Roman culture, in the transitional period from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.

Name
The ethnonym is attested as Wandali and Wendilenses by Saxo, as Vendill in Old Norse, and as Wend(e)las in Old English, all going back to a Proto-Germanic form reconstructed as *Wanđilaz. The etymology of the name remains unclear. According to linguist Vladimir Orel, it may stem from the Proto-Germanic adjective *wanđaz ('turned, twisted'), itself derived from the verb *wenđanan (or *winđanan), meaning 'to wind'. Alternatively, it has been derived from a root *wanđ-, meaning 'water', based on the idea that the tribe was originally located near the Limfjord (a sea inlet in Denmark). The stem can also be found in Old High German wentilsēo and Old English wendelsǣ, both literally meaning 'Vandal-sea' and designating the Mediterranean Sea.

The Germanic mythological figure of Aurvandill has been interpreted by Rudolf Much to mean 'Shining Vandal'. Much forwarded the theory that the tribal name Vandal reflects worship of Aurvandil or the Divine Twins, possibly involving an origin myth that the Vandalic kings were descended from Aurvandil (comparable to the case of many other Germanic tribal names).

Some medieval authors equated two classical ethnonyms, "Vandals" and Veneti, and applied both to West Slavs, leading to the term Wends, which has been used for various Slavic-speaking groups and is still used for Lusatians. However, modern scholars derive "Wend" from "Veneti", and do not equate the Veneti and Vandals.

The name of the Vandals has been connected to that of Vendel, the name of a province in Uppland, Sweden, which is also eponymous of the Vendel Period of Swedish prehistory, corresponding to the late Germanic Iron Age leading up to the Viking Age. The connection is considered tenuous at best and more plausibly the result of chance, though Scandinavia is considered the probable homeland of the tribe prior to the Migration Period.

Classification
As the Vandals eventually came to live outside of Germania, they were not considered Germani by ancient Roman authors. Neither another East Germanic-speaking group, the Goths, nor Norsemen (early Scandinavians), were counted among the Germani by the Romans.

Since the Vandals spoke a Germanic language (mainly:Vandalic) and belonged to early Germanic culture, they are classified as a Germanic people by modern scholars.

Early classical sources
The earliest mention of the Vandals is from Pliny the Elder, who used the term Vandili in a broad way to define one of the major groupings of all Germanic peoples. Tribes within this category who he mentions are the Burgundiones, Varini, Carini (otherwise unknown), and the Gutones.

Tacitus mentioned the Vandilii, but only in a passage explaining legends about the origins of the Germanic peoples. He names them as one of the groups sometimes thought to be one of the oldest divisions of these peoples, along with the Marsi, Gambrivii, Suebi but does not say where they live, or which peoples are within this category. On the other hand, Tacitus and Ptolemy give information about the position of Varini, Burgundians, and Gutones in this period, and these indications suggest that the Vandals in this period lived between the Oder and Vistula rivers.

Ptolemy furthermore mentioned the Silingi who were later counted as Vandals, as living south of the Semnones, who were Suebians living on the Elbe, and stretching to the Oder.

The Hasdingi, who later led the invasion of Carthage, do not appear in written records until the 2nd century and the time of the Marcomannic wars. The Lacringi appear in 3rd century records.

Lugii
The Lugii, who were also mentioned in early classical sources in the same region, are likely to have been the same people as the Vandals. The Lugii are mentioned by Strabo, Tacitus and Ptolemy as a large group of tribes between the Vistula and the Oder. Strabo and Ptolemy do not mention the Vandals at all, only the Lugii, Tacitus mentions them in a passage about the ancestry of the Germanic peoples without saying where they lived, and Pliny the Elder in contrast mentions the Vandals but not the Lugii. Walter Pohl and Walter Goffart have noted that Ptolemy seems to distinguish the Silingi from the Lugii, and in the 2nd century the Hasdings, when they appear in the Roman record, are also distinguished from the Lugii. Herwig Wolfram notes that "In all likelihood the Lugians and the Vandals were one cultic community that lived in the same region of the Oder in Silesia, where it was first under Celtic and then under Germanic domination." This may account for the differentiation between the Celtic Lugii and their more Germanic successors the Vandals.

Przeworsk culture
In archaeology, the Vandals are associated with the Przeworsk culture, but the culture probably extended over several central and eastern European peoples. Their origin, ethnicity and linguistic affiliation are heavily debated. The bearers of the Przeworsk culture mainly practiced cremation and occasionally inhumation.

Language
Very little is known about the Vandalic language itself, but it is believed to be of the extinct East Germanic linguistic branch, like Gothic. The Goths have left behind the only text corpus of the East Germanic language type, especially a 4th-century translation of the Gospels.

Introduction into the Roman Empire
In the 2nd century, two or three distinct Vandal peoples came to the attention of Roman authors, the Silingi, the Hasdingi, and possibly the Lacringi, who appear together with the Hasdingi. Only the Silingi had been mentioned in early Roman works, and are associated with Silesia.

These peoples appeared during the Marcomannic Wars, which resulted in widespread destruction and the first invasion of Italy in the Roman Empire period. During the Marcomannic Wars (166–180) the Hasdingi (or Astingi), led by the kings Raus and Rapt (or Rhaus and Raptus) moved south, entering Dacia as allies of Rome. However they eventually caused problems in Dacia and moved further south, towards the lower Danube area. Together with the Hasdingi were the Lacringi, who were possibly also Vandals.

In about 271 AD the Roman Emperor Aurelian was obliged to protect the middle course of the Danube against Vandals. They made peace and stayed on the eastern bank of the Danube.

In 278, Zosimus reported that emperor Probus had defeated the Vandals and Burgundians near a river (sometimes proposed to be the Lech, and sent many of them to Britain. During this same period, the 11th panegyric to Maximian delivered in 291, reported two different conflicts outside the empire wherein Burgundians were associated with Alamanni, and other Vandals, probably Hasdingi in the Carpathian region, were associated with Gepids.

According to Jordanes' Getica, the Hasdingi came into conflict with the Goths around the time of Constantine the Great. At the time, these Vandals were living in lands later inhabited by the Gepids, where they were surrounded "on the east [by] the Goths, on the west [by] the Marcomanni, on the north [by] the Hermanduri and on the south [by] the Hister (Danube)." The Vandals were attacked by the Gothic king Geberic, and their king Visimar was killed. The Vandals then migrated to neighbouring Pannonia, where, after Constantine the Great (in about 330) granted them lands on the right bank of the Danube, they lived for the next sixty years.

In the late 4th century and early 5th, the famous magister militum Stilicho (died 408), the chief minister of the Emperor Honorius, was described as being of Vandal descent. Vandals raided the Roman province of Raetia in the winter of 401/402. From this, historian Peter Heather concludes that at this time the Vandals were located in the region around the Middle and Upper Danube. It is possible that such Middle Danubian Vandals were part of the Gothic king Radagaisus' invasion of Italy in 405–406 AD.

While the Hasdingian Vandals were already established in the Middle Danube for centuries, it is less clear where the Silingian Vandals had been living though it may have been in Silesia.

In Britannia
In AD 278, Emperor Probus on defeating the Vandals and Burgundians, transferred many of them to Britain. It is unknown where they were settled, though Silchester seems to be a likely candidate. The city bears the name of the Silingi, is only one of six that existed in Roman Britain that did not survive the Sub-Roman era, and appears to have been ritually cursed – likely by the Anglo-Saxons – before being abandoned.

In Gaul
In 405 AD the Vandals advanced from Pannonia travelling west along the Danube without much difficulty, but when they reached the Rhine, they met resistance from the Franks, who populated and controlled Romanized regions in northern Gaul. According to the Frigeridus fragment cited by Gregory of Tours, around 20,000 Vandals, including Godigisel himself, died in this Vandal-Frankish war, but then with the help of the Alans they managed to defeat the Franks, and on December 31, 405 the Vandals crossed the Rhine, probably while it was frozen, to invade Gaul, which they devastated terribly. Under Godigisel's son Gunderic, the Vandals plundered their way westward and southward through Aquitaine.

In Hispania

On October 13, 409 they crossed the Pyrenees into the Iberian peninsula. There, the Hasdingi received land from the Romans, as foederati, in Asturia (Northwest) and the Silingi in Hispania Baetica (South), while the Alans got lands in Lusitania (West) and the region around Carthago Nova. The Suebi also controlled part of Gallaecia. The Visigoths, who invaded Iberia on the orders of the Romans before receiving lands in Septimania (Southern France), crushed the Silingi Vandals in 417 and the Alans in 418, killing the western Alan king Attaces. The remainder of his people and the remnants of the Silingi, who were nearly wiped out, subsequently appealed to the Vandal king Gunderic to accept the Alan crown. Later Vandal kings in North Africa styled themselves Rex Wandalorum et Alanorum ("King of the Vandals and Alans"). In 419 AD the Hasdingi Vandals were defeated by a joint Roman-Suebi coalition. Gunderic fled to Baetica, where he was also proclaimed king of the Silingi Vandals. In 422, Gunderic decisively defeated a Roman-Suebi-Gothic coalition led by the Roman patrician Castinus at the Battle of Tarraco. It is likely that many Roman and Gothic troops deserted to Gunderic following the battle. For the next five years, according to Hydatius, Gunderic created widespread havoc in the western Mediterranean. In 425, the Vandals pillaged the Balearic Islands, Hispania and Mauritania, sacking Cartagena and Seville in 425. The capture of the maritime city of Cartagena enabled the Vandals to engage in widespread naval activities. In 428 Gunderic captured Seville for a second time but died while laying siege to the city's church. He was succeeded by his half-brother Genseric, who although he was illegitimate (his mother was a slave) had held a prominent position at the Vandal court, rising to the throne unchallenged. In 429, the Vandals departed Spain which remained almost totally in Roman hands until 439, when the Sueves, confined to Gallaecia moved south and captured Emerita Augusta (Mérida), the see city of Roman administration for the whole peninsula.

Genseric is often regarded by historians as the most able barbarian leader of the Migration Period. Michael Frassetto writes that he probably contributed more to the destruction of Rome than any of his contemporaries. Although the barbarians controlled Hispania, they still comprised a tiny minority among a much larger Hispano-Roman population, approximately 200,000 out of 6,000,000. Shortly after seizing the throne, Genseric was attacked from the rear by a large force of Suebi under the command of Heremigarius who had managed to take Lusitania. This Suebi army was defeated near Mérida and its leader Hermigarius drowned in the Guadiana River while trying to flee.

It is possible that the name Al-Andalus (and its derivative Andalusia) is derived from the Arabic adoption of the name of the Vandals.

Establishment
The Vandals under Genseric (also known as Geiseric) crossed to Africa in 429. Although numbers are unknown and some historians debate the validity of estimates, based on Procopius' assertion that the Vandals and Alans numbered 80,000 when they moved to North Africa, Peter Heather estimates that they could have fielded an army of around 15,000–20,000.

According to Procopius, the Vandals came to Africa at the request of Bonifacius, the military ruler of the region. Seeking to establish himself as an independent ruler in Africa or even become Roman Emperor, Bonifacius had defeated several Roman attempts to subdue him, until he was mastered by the newly appointed Gothic count of Africa, Sigisvult, who captured both Hippo Regius and Carthage. It is possible that Bonifacius had sought Genseric as an ally against Sigisvult, promising him a part of Africa in return.

Advancing eastwards along the coast, the Vandals were confronted on the Numidian border in May–June 430 by Bonifacius. Negotiations broke down, and Bonifacius was soundly defeated. Bonifacius subsequently barricaded himself inside Hippo Regius with the Vandals besieging the city. Inside, Saint Augustine and his priests prayed for relief from the invaders, knowing full well that the fall of the city would spell conversion or death for many Roman Christians.

On 28 August 430, three months into the siege, St. Augustine (who was 75 years old) died, perhaps from starvation or stress, as the wheat fields outside the city lay dormant and unharvested. The death of Augustine shocked the Regent of the Western Roman Empire, Galla Placidia, who feared the consequences if her realm lost its most important source of grain. She raised a new army in Italy and convinced her nephew in Constantinople, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II, to send an army to North Africa led by Aspar.

Around July–August 431, Genseric raised the siege of Hippo Regius, which enabled Bonifacius to retreat from Hippo Regius to Carthage, where he was joined by Aspar's army. During the summer of 432, Genseric soundly defeated the joint forces of both Bonifacius and Aspar, which enabled him to seize Hippo Regius unopposed. Genseric and Aspar subsequently negotiated a peace treaty of some sorts. Upon seizing Hippo Regius, Genseric made it the first capital of the Vandal kingdom.

The Romans and the Vandals concluded a treaty in 435 giving the Vandals control of the Mauretania and the western half of Numidia. Genseric chose to break the treaty in 439 when he invaded the province of Africa Proconsularis and seized Carthage on October 19. The city was captured without a fight; the Vandals entered the city while most of the inhabitants were attending the races at the hippodrome. Genseric made it his capital, and styled himself the King of the Vandals and Alans, to denote the inclusion of the Alans of northern Africa into his alliance. His forces also occupied Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic Islands. His siege of Palermo in 440 was a failure as was the second attempt to invade Sicily near Agrigento in 442 (the Vandals occupied the island from 468 to 476 when it was ceded to Odovacer). Historian Cameron suggests that the new Vandal rule may not have been unwelcomed by the population of North Africa as the great landowners were generally unpopular.

The impression given by ancient sources such as Victor of Vita, Quodvultdeus, and Fulgentius of Ruspe was that the Vandal take-over of Carthage and North Africa led to widespread destruction. However, recent archaeological investigations have challenged this assertion. Although Carthage's Odeon was destroyed, the street pattern remained the same and some public buildings were renovated. The political centre of Carthage was the Byrsa Hill. New industrial centres emerged within towns during this period. Historian Andy Merrills uses the large amounts of African Red Slip ware discovered across the Mediterranean dating from the Vandal period of North Africa to challenge the assumption that the Vandal rule of North Africa was a time of economic instability. When the Vandals raided Sicily in 440, the Western Roman Empire was too preoccupied with war with Gaul to react. Theodosius II, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, dispatched an expedition to deal with the Vandals in 441; however, it only progressed as far as Sicily. The Western Empire under Valentinian III secured peace with the Vandals in 442. Under the treaty the Vandals gained Byzacena, Tripolitania, and the eastern half of Numidia, and were confirmed in control of Proconsular Africa as well as the Vandal Kingdom as the first barbarian kingdom was officially recognized as an independent kingdom in former Roman territory instead of foederati. The Empire retained western Numidia and the two Mauretanian provinces until 455.

Sack of Rome
During the next thirty-five years, with a large fleet, Genseric looted the coasts of the Eastern and Western Empires. Vandal activity in the Mediterranean was so substantial that the sea's name in Old English was Wendelsæ (i. e. Sea of the Vandals). After Attila the Hun's death, however, the Romans could afford to turn their attention back to the Vandals, who were in control of some of the richest lands of their former empire.

In an effort to bring the Vandals into the fold of the Empire, Valentinian III offered his daughter's hand in marriage to Genseric's son. Before this treaty could be carried out, however, politics again played a crucial part in the blunders of Rome. Petronius Maximus killed Valentinian III and claimed the Western throne. Petronius then forced Valentinian III's widow, empress Licinia Eudoxia, to marry him. Diplomacy between the two factions broke down, and in 455 with a letter from Licinia Eudoxia, begging Genseric's son to rescue her, the Vandals took Rome, along with the Empress and her daughters Eudocia and Placidia.

The chronicler Prosper of Aquitaine offers the only fifth-century report that, on 2 June 455, Pope Leo the Great received Genseric and implored him to abstain from murder and destruction by fire, and to be satisfied with pillage. Whether the pope's influence saved Rome is, however, questioned. The Vandals departed with countless valuables. Eudoxia and her daughter Eudocia were taken to North Africa.

Consolidation
In 456 a Vandal fleet of 60 ships threatening both Gaul and Italy was ambushed and defeated at Agrigentum and Corsica by the Western Roman general Ricimer. In 457 a mixed Vandal-Berber army returning with loot from a raid in Campania were soundly defeated in a surprise attack by Western Emperor Majorian at the mouth of the Garigliano river.

As a result of the Vandal sack of Rome and piracy in the Mediterranean, it became important to the Roman Empire to destroy the Vandal kingdom. In 460, Majorian launched an expedition against the Vandals, but was defeated at the Battle of Cartagena. In 468 the Western and Eastern Roman empires launched an enormous expedition against the Vandals under the command of Basiliscus, which reportedly was composed of 100,000 soldiers and 1,000 ships. The Vandals defeated the invaders at the Battle of Cap Bon, capturing the Western fleet, and destroying the Eastern through the use of fire ships. Following up the attack, the Vandals tried to invade the Peloponnese, but were driven back by the Maniots at Kenipolis with heavy losses. In retaliation, the Vandals took 500 hostages at Zakynthos, hacked them to pieces and threw the pieces overboard on the way to Carthage. In 469 the Vandals gained control of Sicily but were forced by Odoacer to relinquish it in 477 except for the western port of Lilybaeum (lost in 491 after a failed attempt on their part to re-take the island).

In the 470s, the Romans abandoned their policy of war against the Vandals. The Western general Ricimer reached a treaty with them, and in 476 Genseric was able to conclude a "perpetual peace" with Constantinople. Relations between the two states assumed a veneer of normality. From 477 onwards, the Vandals produced their own coinage, restricted to bronze and silver low-denomination coins. The high-denomination imperial money was retained, demonstrating in the words of Merrills "reluctance to usurp the imperial prerogative".

Although the Vandals had fended off attacks from the Romans and established hegemony over the islands of the western Mediterranean, they were less successful in their conflict with the Berbers. Situated south of the Vandal kingdom, the Berbers inflicted two major defeats on the Vandals in the period 496–530.

Domestic religious tensions

Differences between the Arian Vandals and their Trinitarian subjects (including both Catholics and Donatists) were a constant source of tension in their African state. Catholic bishops were exiled or killed by Genseric and laymen were excluded from office and frequently suffered confiscation of their property. He protected his Catholic subjects when his relations with Rome and Constantinople were friendly, as during the years 454–57, when the Catholic community at Carthage, being without a head, elected Deogratias bishop. The same was also the case during the years 476–477 when Bishop Victor of Cartenna sent him, during a period of peace, a sharp refutation of Arianism and suffered no punishment. Huneric, Genseric's successor, issued edicts against Catholics in 483 and 484 in an effort to marginalise them and make Arianism the primary religion in North Africa. Generally most Vandal kings, except Hilderic, persecuted Trinitarian Christians to a greater or lesser extent, banning conversion for Vandals, exiling bishops and generally making life difficult for Trinitarians.

Decline
According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Genseric, one of the most powerful personalities of the "era of the Migrations", died on 25 January 477, at the great age of around 88 years. According to the law of succession which he had promulgated, the oldest male member of the royal house was to succeed. Thus he was succeeded by his son Huneric (477–484), who at first tolerated Catholics, owing to his fear of Constantinople, but after 482 began to persecute Manichaeans and Catholics."

Gunthamund (484–496), his cousin and successor, sought internal peace with the Catholics and ceased persecution once more. Externally, the Vandal power had been declining since Genseric's death, and Gunthamund lost early in his reign all but a small wedge of western Sicily to the Ostrogoths which was lost in 491 and had to withstand increasing pressure from the autochthonous Moors.

According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: "While Thrasamund (496–523), owing to his religious fanaticism, was hostile to Catholics, he contented himself with bloodless persecutions".

Turbulent end
Hilderic (523–530) was the Vandal king most tolerant towards the Catholic Church. He granted it religious freedom; consequently, Catholic synods were once more held in North Africa. However, he had little interest in war, and left it to a family member, Hoamer. When Hoamer suffered a defeat against the Moors, the Arian faction within the royal family led a revolt, raising the banner of national Arianism, and his cousin Gelimer (530–534) became king. Hilderic, Hoamer and their relatives were thrown into prison.

Byzantine Emperor Justinian I declared war, with the stated intention of restoring Hilderic to the Vandal throne. The deposed Hilderic was murdered in 533 on Gelimer's orders. While an expedition was en route, a large part of the Vandal army and navy was led by Tzazo, Gelimer's brother, to Sardinia to deal with a rebellion. As a result, the armies of the Byzantine Empire commanded by Belisarius were able to land unopposed 10 mi from Carthage. Gelimer quickly assembled an army, and met Belisarius at the Battle of Ad Decimum; the Vandals were winning the battle until Gelimer's brother Ammatas and nephew Gibamund fell in battle. Gelimer then lost heart and fled. Belisarius quickly took Carthage while the surviving Vandals fought on.

On December 15, 533, Gelimer and Belisarius clashed again at the Battle of Tricamarum, some 20 mi from Carthage. Again, the Vandals fought well but broke, this time when Gelimer's brother Tzazo fell in battle. Belisarius quickly advanced to Hippo, second city of the Vandal Kingdom, and in 534 Gelimer surrendered to the Byzantine conqueror, ending the Kingdom of the Vandals. North Africa, comprising north Tunisia and eastern Algeria in the Vandal period, became a Roman province again, from which the Vandals were expelled. Many Vandals went to Saldae (today called Béjaïa in north Algeria) where they integrated themselves with the Berbers. Many others were put into imperial service or fled to the two Gothic kingdoms (Ostrogothic Kingdom and Visigothic Kingdom). Some Vandal women married Byzantine soldiers and settled in north Algeria and Tunisia. The choicest Vandal warriors were formed into five cavalry regiments, known as Vandali Iustiniani, stationed on the Persian frontier. Some entered the private service of Belisarius. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Gelimer was honourably treated and received large estates in Galatia. He was also offered the rank of a patrician but had to refuse it because he was not willing to change his Arian faith". In the words of historian Roger Collins: "The remaining Vandals were then shipped back to Constantinople to be absorbed into the imperial army. As a distinct ethnic unit they disappeared". Some of the few Vandals remained at North Africa while more migrated back to Spain. In 546 the Vandalic Dux of Numidia, Guntarith, defected from the Byzantines and raised a rebellion with Moorish support. He was able to capture Carthage, but was assassinated by the Byzantines shortly afterwards.

List of kings
Known kings of the Vandals:
 * Wisimar (d.335)
 * Godigisel (359–406)
 * Gunderic (407–428)
 * Gaiseric (428–477)
 * Huneric (477–484)
 * Gunthamund (484–496)
 * Thrasamund (496–523)
 * Hilderic (523–530)
 * Gelimer (530–534)

Latin literacy
All Vandals that modern historians know about were able to speak Latin, which also remained the official language of the Vandal administration (most of the staff seems to have been native Berber/Roman). Levels of literacy in the ancient world are uncertain, but writing was integral to administration and business. Studies of literacy in North Africa have tended to centre around the administration, which was limited to the social elite. However, the majority of the population of North Africa did not live in urban centres.

Judith George explains that "Analysis of the [Vandal] poems in their context holds up a mirror to the ways and values of the times". Very little work of the poets of Vandal North Africa survives, but what does is found in the Latin Anthology; apart from their names, little is known about the poets themselves, not even when they were writing. Their work drew on earlier Roman traditions. Modern scholars generally hold the view that the Vandals allowed the Romans in North Africa to carry on with their way of life with only occasional interference.

Legacy
Since the Middle Ages, kings of Denmark were styled "King of Denmark, the Goths and the Wends", the Wends being a group of West Slavs formerly living in Mecklenburg and eastern Holstein in modern Germany. The title "King of the Wends" is translated as vandalorum rex in Latin. The title was shortened to "King of Denmark" in 1972. Starting in 1540, Swedish kings (following Denmark) were styled Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex ("King of the Swedes, Geats, and Wends"). Carl XVI Gustaf dropped the title in 1973 and now styles himself simply as "King of Sweden".

The modern term vandalism stems from the Vandals' reputation as the barbarian people who sacked and looted Rome in AD 455. The Vandals were probably not any more destructive than other invaders of ancient times, but writers who idealized Rome often blamed them for its destruction. For example, English Restoration poet John Dryden wrote, Till Goths, and Vandals, a rude Northern race, / Did all the matchless Monuments deface. The term Vandalisme was coined in 1794 by Henri Grégoire, bishop of Blois, to describe the destruction of artwork following the French Revolution. The term was quickly adopted across Europe. This new use of the term was important in colouring the perception of the Vandals from later Late Antiquity, popularizing the pre-existing idea that they were a barbaric group with a taste for destruction. Vandals and other "barbarian" groups had long been blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire by writers and historians.

Robin Hemley wrote a short story, "The Liberation of Rome", in which a professor of ancient history (mainly Roman) is confronted by a student claiming to be an ethnic Vandal.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Vandals


text:
Talk:Ark

Untitled
An "ark" is a ship without a rudder that generally drifts or uses sails only.

The word "ark" has been commonly used in modern times to describe genetic databases, in particular to ensure against exctinct species' being lost genetically. This is an interpretation obviously derived from Noah's Ark.

It is used less commonly to mean any ecological sanctuary or oasis that has special protections.

These latter usages are obviously more culturally neutral than the 1897 definition, so I believe we should move this article to "Noah's Ark" and include some of the usage above in a more generic article.

Blatant bias from Sunday Schools!
>Noah's Ark, a massive vessel Noah built at God's command to keep Noah, his family, and a core breeding stock of the world’s animals safe.

...and Eldorado is the city made of pure gold. Except that neither exist! It is stupid to pretend that the ark is real, a vessel large enough tohold specimen of all animal races of the earth would be impossibly large to engineer even today, and so the above quoted sentence as a statement is misleading. 195.70.32.136 10:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ark


text:
Baroque chess

Baroque chess is a chess variant invented in 1962 by Robert Abbott. In 1963, at the suggestion of his publisher, he changed the name to Ultima, by which name it is also known. Abbott later considered his invention flawed and suggested amendments to the rules, but these suggestions have been substantially ignored by the gaming community, which continues to play by the 1962 rules. Since the rules for Baroque were first laid down in 1962, some regional variation has arisen, causing the game to diverge from Ultima.

Description
Baroque chess is usually played on a standard 8×8 chessboard with the standard Staunton design of chess pieces. The rules that follow are widely found on the internet, but other variants exist. One variant was popular among students at Cambridge University in 1974. The initial setup of the pieces is the same as in standard chess, except for two things that the players must first decide on – center counter symmetry, and corner counter symmetry.

Establishing the degree of symmetry
Center counter symmetry allows either player to decide whether to switch his king and Withdrawer ("queen") around, and then corner counter symmetry requires each player to decide which of his "rooks" will be turned upside down. (The one that remains upright is the Coordinator, and the one that is turned upside down is the Immobilizer.) After these two kinds of symmetries are determined, White moves first.

For purposes of recording the moves that are played in the game, it is sufficient to employ an algebraic form of notation, as in chess, and write the names of the pieces and the squares they are to be placed in. For instance, 1. Kd1 & We1, Ke8 & Wd8 (center counter symmetry), and 2. Ia1 & Ch1, Ih8 & Ca8 (corner counter symmetry).

If the symmetry resolution phases that are usually found at the start of the game could somehow be put off for later, then one may readily see how similar they are to the castling maneuvers in chess. They have the practical function of multiplying the number of games that are possible from the initial starting position.

Moving
In Baroque, the king is the one piece alone that is limited to moving exactly one square at a time; it moves and takes just like the king in chess. All of the remaining pieces on the first rank may move like the queen, in all directions. They have this power as a matter of privilege, as they are all considered to be noble pieces. This is a kind of privilege that attaches to them at birth, that is, at the outset of the game, and is never diminished; they retain this privilege no matter where they go, except when they find themselves next to an Immobilizer (see below).

The pawns, on the other hand, move just like the rook moves in chess, unable to move diagonally. Just as in chess, pawns are the peasants of this game. Unlike chess, pawns are never promoted to another kind of piece. (There is no special square to which pawns can be moved and then promoted.)

Capturing
All the pieces except for the king capture differently from their counterparts in chess, and all but the king and pawn have different names. The king is the only piece that captures, as chess pieces do, by moving into a square that is occupied by an enemy piece. All the other pieces capture enemy pieces in more complex ways. Friendly pieces are never allowed to capture other friendly pieces.

Pieces
The names of the pieces and rules for movement are as follows:

 * The king moves and captures like a standard chess king. There is no castling. The objective of the game is to capture the opposing king. Fast play with a chess clock usually makes declaration of checkmate a very rare thing to achieve in actual face to face play.
 * The pawns (or pincers or squeezers) move like standard chess rooks. A pawn captures any opposing piece horizontally or vertically between the square to which the pawn moved and a friendly piece (i.e. there may be no gaps between any of the three pieces). This is considered a custodial form of capture because it has been likened to two men coming up on the sides of the person to be seized, and taking hold of his arms to carry him off. Pawns never capture diagonally, only horizontally or vertically. It also moves the same as the pawn in Hasami shogi.

The remaining pieces all move like standard chess queens, but have unique methods of capture.

 * The Withdrawer (or Retreater), represented by the queen, captures by moving directly away from an adjacent piece.
 * The Long-leapers, represented by the knights, capture by jumping over an opposing piece in a straight line. A long-leaper may make multiple captures in the same line as long as each piece is jumped independently.  Those variants of Baroque prohibiting multiple leaps call this piece the Leaper, and restrict it to capturing the first enemy piece it encounters, provided the next space is empty or open.  It appears that the choice between a Long-leaper and a Single-leaper tends to affect game play by encouraging "hunkering down" and overdefending pieces, and allowing pieces to spread across the board more, with less attention to bulky blockades.
 * The Coordinator, represented by the unmarked rook, captures any opposing piece that is on either of the two squares found at the intersection of its own file and the king's rank, and the intersection of the king's file and its own rank; these are found after the Coordinator has moved.
 * The Immobilizer (or Freezer), represented by the inverted rook, does not capture anything, but immobilizes all adjacent enemy pieces.
 * The Imitators (or Chameleons), represented by the bishops, capture any piece by moving as a piece of the type captured would have moved to capture. Also Imitators or Chameleons immobilize enemy Immobilizers to which they are adjacent. Imitators cannot capture Imitators. In order for an Imitator to capture an enemy king, it must begin its turn adjacent to it, and step into its square.  This is because the king is the only piece on the board that steps one square at a time, and captures by 'occupation' and 'replacement' – stepping into the enemy's square to capture it.

Diagrammed examples are indispensable to understanding the rules.

King
The white king moves Kc4-d5 delivering checkmate. Normally it would not be possible for the two kings to be adjacent, but here the black king is unable to move due to the white immobilizer on f4, thus the d5 square is not under attack by black, and the white king is not moving into check.

Note that White could not play Kc4-d4, as that would place his own king in check from the black Withdrawer. Capturing the Withdrawer with Kc4xd3 would result in stalemate, as black would then have no legal moves.

Pawn/Pincer
The white pawn (or Pincer) moves Pg4-d4, capturing the black Immobilizer and black pawn. The Pincer moves as the pawn in Hasami shogi. The black Withdrawer on e5 is not captured because pawns capture only vertically and horizontally, not diagonally. The black Imitator (Chameleon) on d3 is not captured, because there is no white piece on d2. Finally, the black Long-leaper on g3 was safe because it moved between the two white pawns, rather than a white pawn moving to complete the custodial capture.

Withdrawer
The white Withdrawer moves Wg6-d3, capturing the black pawn on h7. The pawn on g7 and the Imitator (Chameleon) on h6 are unaffected because the Withdrawer did not move in their respective lines, but the Withdrawer could have captured either by a move in the g-file or sixth rank respectively. Note that the Withdrawer also gives check to the black king by threatening to move away on the d-file.

Long-Leaper
The white Long-Leaper moves Ld2-d4-d6-d8, capturing three black pieces. It might instead have captured the black Withdrawer with either Ld2-g5 or Ld2-h6. On the other hand, the black pawn on b2 and the black Chameleon on d1 are safe from the Long Leaper because there is no square on the opposite side on which the Long Leaper could land. Also the black pawns on f2 and g2 cannot be captured by Ld2-h2, because there is no space in between the two pawns which would allow the Long Leaper to make two separate jumps. A move of Ld2-b4 would be illegal because long leapers may not jump over friendly pieces. Some variations of Baroque forbid multi-leaping, if only because it is felt that the game is more playable if the Leaper is less powerful. By requiring the Leaper to stop its movement immediately after capturing the first piece, that objective is met.

Coordinator
The white Coordinator moves Cd4-f6, capturing black's Leaper on c6 and Immobilizer on f2. If White had played Cd4-d6 instead, he would have captured black's Leaper and pawn. The Coordinator threatens only pieces on the same rank or file as the friendly king. This kind of capture can be visualized by imagining an invisible cross emanating from the square the king is sitting on, and another invisible cross emanating from the square the Coordinator arrives at. The points where these two crosses intersect are the places where captures are possible.

Immobilizer
The white Immobilizer moves If3-d5, immobilizing five black pieces. The black Leaper on g4, which had been immobilized, is now free to move again.

An Immobilizer can never be captured by an Immobilizer, or Imitator (Chameleon). An Immobilizer can never be captured by a king or Withdrawer unless the variation popular in Cambridge is being played, in which case the Immobilizer itself must first be immobilized. When an Immobilizer comes into contact with an enemy Chameleon or Immobilizer, the two pieces freeze each other, after which neither can move unless the other is captured. In the version played at Cambridge, the power of an enemy Immobilizer to arrest a friendly piece's movement is defeated when another friendly Immobilizer or Chameleon is brought up to it, effectively cancelling out each other's power to arrest movement.

Some versions of Baroque allow an immobilized piece to commit suicide, i.e. be removed from the board, in lieu of the regular move of that player. There may be strategic reasons to open a line. For example, after the above diagrammed move, the black Leaper on c5 may wish to commit suicide, so that the other Leaper can capture the white Immobilizer by jumping over it on the fifth rank. White cannot hinder this plan, because the Immobilizer is itself immobilized by the black Chameleon.

Chameleon/Imitator
On the adjacent diagram, the white Chameleon moves Xg6-e6-c6, capturing all seven black pieces except the king in one move and delivering check. In the Cambridge rules, this capture is not possible. The move is legal, but it captures only the two leapers, because the move is not a legal move for any of the other target pieces. In the absence of the two black leapers, the same move would capture the other five pieces.
 * It captures the black withdrawer by moving away from it.
 * It captures the black long-leapers by jumping over them.
 * It captures three black pawns by surrounding them. (A chameleon can only capture pawns on a horizontal move or vertical move, not on a diagonal move.)
 * It captures the black coordinator by rank/file coordination with the white king.
 * It delivers check by moving adjacent to the black king.

Maxima
Maxima was invented by Roberto Lavieri in 2003. It is Baroque played on a somewhat larger board that is mostly rectangular and 8×9 (a2–h10) but for a couple of extra squares that are outside the board, located at d1 and e1 just behind the king and queen's squares. A matching pair of squares are also on the other side of the board, just beyond the black king and queen (d11 and e11). Although one objective of the game is to checkmate the king, an alternative objective allows depositing pieces in both of the pair of squares on the other side of the board. Bare king is also a win. Unlike Baroque, the king in Maxima moves like the knight in chess, and moreover treats the board as a cylinder (e.g. Kb2–h3 is a legal move), making for a game with much more fluid movement of pieces.

There are two extra pieces: Mage and Guard. The Mage moves one square diagonally, then may continue its move orthogonally away from where it started (i.e. the move of the aanca from Grant Acedrex). It captures by displacement and is immune to the Immobiliser. The Guard moves and captures like the king in chess (not like the king in Maxima).

The order of White's pieces is:
 * First rank: blank, Mage, blank, King, Withdrawer, blank, Mage, blank
 * Second rank: Chameleon, Long-leaper, Coordinator, Immobiliser, Long-leaper, Chameleon
 * Third rank: Guard, Pawn, Pawn, Pawn, Pawn, Pawn, Pawn, Guard

Black's setup is mirrored from White's, so the kings are on d2 and e10.

Optima
Baroque that is similar to Maxima with additional pieces and rules.

Renaissance
As shogi is to chess, Renaissance is to Baroque—pieces may be revived and reborn. It was invented by Matthew Monchalin in 1975. It is played on a 9×9 board; the arrangement of pieces on White's first rank is: Immobiliser, Long-leaper, Chameleon, Withdrawer, King, Bomb, Resurrector, Pusher, Coordinator. (The arrangement of the pieces on Black's first rank is backwards, so Immobilisers are on a1 and i9.) As in Ultima, White and Black may choose to swap Immobiliser and Coordinator. Captured pieces change sides and can be dropped back into play. The new pieces transform when captured: Pusher becomes Puller and vice versa, while Resurrector becomes Bomb and vice versa. Players may agree to have extra pieces in a queue, awaiting to enter the board. The pieces from Baroque are the same in Renaissance, except that in Renaissance the Long-leaper can only capture one man a turn.

The Resurrector (or Swapper or Ankh) moves like a queen for all ordinary purposes, but for swapping actions must move like a king, trading places with any adjacent piece (both friend or foe), never capturing it. Consistent with the concept of the Resurrector being a piece wholly incapable of killing, it can also step into any adjacent empty square, and leave behind a previously captured piece resurrected by placing it in the square just vacated. Although, seen in that light, though the Resurrector is like a piece of life, it can be transformed into a 1 square bomb when captured and readmitted to the board - but capable only of death. Instead of moving, a bomb need merely explode to effect the destruction of both friendly pieces and enemy pieces adjacent to itself, and suiciding in the process. The destruction of pieces in this way causes all affected to be unrevivable.

There are also two more pieces that, like the Coordinator, are not capable of unassisted capture: the Pusher and the Puller. They can move like queens for ordinary purposes, but for the purpose of exercising their special powers, they must be adjacent to the affected piece at the start of the turn. If they begin adjacent to a piece (regardless if friendly or foe), they can push or pull it by 1 square. For a Pusher, the empty square on the other side must be open (except for the unusual circumstance of driving a king into an enemy piece, or an Imitator into a king.) Although the Pushers and Pullers are not capable of capture, their pushing and pulling maneuvers can result in other pieces being forced to make captures, regardless of the captured one being a friendly or enemy piece. (If a Puller pulls an enemy Puller, then that enemy Puller also pulls a piece along with it.)

Rococo
Rococo was invented by Peter Aronson and David Howe in 2002. It is a species of Baroque that is played on a 10×10 board for the purposes of captures, but on the inner 8×8 square just inside it for the purpose of movement. To put it another way, the outer perimeter of squares can only be entered as a result of a capturing maneuver. In addition to the traditional Baroque pieces, Rococo has an Advancer piece that moves like a queen, but captures the enemy piece it has run up next to, stopping just short of the piece taken. As is usual for most pieces of the Baroque family, the Advancer will not enter into the space vacated by the captured piece, it merely runs up to it, and stops short by 1 square. Unlike the game of Renaissance described above, Rococo has a similarly named Swapper piece that moves like a queen, but trades places with the enemy it runs up to, a full queen's move away. The Rococo Swapper has the unusual property of self-destructing at will, in lieu of moving, provided it is not at the same time immobilized, with the effect of taking one enemy piece alongside it. What sets Rococo apart from Baroque the most is the way the pawns work; they are called cannonball pawns and move like a king, stepping 1 square in all directions, or leap over any adjacent piece (friend or foe). The only way that they can effect capture is by leaping, and landing on the enemy piece. They cannot capture like a king does. Cannonball pawns can be promoted into other pieces when they reach the other side of the board.

The pawn formations unique to the parent game, Baroque, already significantly different from traditional chess, are not seen in Rococo. Instead, Rococo's cannonball pawns seem to hang away from enemy pieces by two or three squares, rarely coming into contact with each other without advance preparation. In both chess and Baroque, however, fine nuances in maneuvering are made possible by locking positions together, made concrete by the establishment of well-defined pawn structures. This sort of thing is lacking in Rococo.

title: Baroque chess


text:
Napoleonic Code

The Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon), officially the Civil Code of the French (Code civil des Français; simply referred to as Code civil), is the French civil code established during the French Consulate in 1804 and still in force in France, although heavily and frequently amended since its inception.

Napoleon himself was not involved in the drafting of the Code, as it was drafted by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on 21 March 1804. The code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major milestone in the abolition of the previous patchwork of feudal laws. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world. The Napoleonic Code is often portrayed to be one of the most widespread systems of law in the world, claimed to be in force in various forms in about 120 countries, but many of those countries are civil code countries that had their own version of their civil code for centuries.

The Napoleonic Code was not the first legal code to be established in a European country with a civil-law legal system; it was preceded by the Codex Maximilianeus bavaricus civilis (Bavaria, 1756), the Allgemeines Landrecht (Prussia, 1794), and the West Galician Code (Galicia, then part of Austria, 1797). It was, however, the first modern legal code to be adopted with a pan-European scope, and it strongly influenced the law of many of the countries formed during and after the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Code influenced developing countries outside Europe attempting to modernise and defeudalise their countries through legal reforms, such as those in the Middle East, while in Latin America the Spanish and Portuguese had established their own versions of the civil code.

History
The categories of the Napoleonic Code were not drawn from earlier French law, but instead from Justinian's sixth-century codification of Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis, and within it, the Institutes. The Institutes divide into the law of:

 * 1) persons
 * 2) things
 * 3) actions.

Similarly, the Napoleonic Code divided the law into four sections:

 * 1) persons
 * 2) property
 * 3) acquisition of property
 * 4) civil procedure (moved into a separate code in 1806).

Prior codification attempts
Before the Napoleonic Code, France did not have a single set of laws; law consisted mainly of local customs, sometimes officially compiled in "custumals" (coutumes), notably the Custom of Paris. There were also exemptions, privileges, and special charters granted by kings or other feudal lords. With the Revolution, the last vestiges of feudalism were abolished.

Specifically, as to civil law, the many different bodies of law used in different parts of France were to be replaced by a single legal code. The Constituent Assembly on 5 October 1790 voted for a codification of French laws, the Constitution of 1791 promised one, and the National Assembly adopted a unanimous resolution on 4 September 1791 providing that "there shall be a code of civil laws common for the entire realm." However, it was the National Convention in 1793 which established a special commission headed by Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès to oversee the drafting process.

His drafts of 1793 (for which Cambacérès had been given a one month deadline), 1794, and 1796 were all rejected by a National Convention and the French Directory of the time was more preoccupied with the turmoil resulting from various wars and strife with other European powers. The first draft contained 719 articles and was very revolutionary, but was rejected for being too technical and criticised for not being radical or philosophical enough. The second, with only 297 articles, was rejected for being too brief and was criticised for being a mere manual of morals. The third, expanded to 1,104 articles, was presented under the conservative Directory regime, but never even came up for discussion.

Another commission, established in December 1799 established a fourth outline drafted in part by Jean-Ignace Jacqueminot (1754–1813). Jacqueminot's draft, the so-called loi Jacqueminot, dealt almost exclusively with persons and emphasised the need to reform the divorce laws, to strengthen parental authority and increase the testator's freedom to dispose of the free portion of his estate. It was rejected.

Napoleonic reforms
After these commissions had rejected multiple constitutional drafts, Napoleon came to power in 1799 and set out to reform the confusing and contradictory French feudal and monarchic legal system in accordance with the ideals of the French Revolution. A commission of four eminent jurists, including Louis-Joseph Fauré, was appointed in 1800 and chaired by Cambacérès (now Second Consul), and sometimes by First Consul Napoleon himself. The Code was complete by 1801, after intensive scrutiny by the Council of State, but was not published until 21 March 1804. It was promulgated as the "Civil Code of the French" (Code civil des Français), but was renamed "the Napoleonic Code" (Code Napoléon) from 1807 to 1815, and once again after the Second French Empire.

The process developed mainly out of the various customs, but was inspired by Justinian's sixth-century codification of Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis and, within that, Justinian's Code (Codex). The Napoleonic Code, however, differed from Justinian's in important ways:
 * it incorporated all kinds of earlier rules, not just legislation;
 * it was not a collection of edited extracts, but a comprehensive rewrite;
 * its structure was much more rational;
 * it had no religious content
 * it was written in the vernacular.

The Napoleonic Code marked a fundamental change in the nature of the civil law legal system, making laws clearer and more accessible. It also superseded the former conflict between royal legislative power and, particularly in the final years before the Revolution, protests by judges representing views and privileges of the social classes to which they belonged. Such conflict led the Revolutionaries to take a negative view of judges making law.

This is reflected in the Napoleonic Code provision prohibiting judges from deciding a case by way of introducing a general rule (Article 5), since the creation of general rules is an exercise of legislative and not of judicial power. In theory, there is thus no case law in France. However, the courts still had to fill in the gaps in the laws and regulations and, indeed, were prohibited from refusing to do so (Article 4). Moreover, both the code and legislation have required judicial interpretation. Thus a vast body of case law has come into existence, but without any rule of stare decisis.

Contents of the Napoleonic Code
The preliminary article of the code established certain important provisions regarding the rule of law. Laws could be applied only if they had been duly promulgated, and then only if they had previously been officially published (including provisions for publishing delays, given the means of communication available at the time). In brief, no secret laws were authorised. It prohibited ex post facto laws (i.e. laws that apply to events that occurred before their introduction). The code also prohibited judges from refusing to do justice on grounds of the insufficiency of the law, thereby encouraging them to interpret the law. On the other hand, it also prohibited judges from making general judgements of a legislative nature (see above).

With regard to family, the code established the supremacy of the husband over his wife and children, the status quo in Europe at the time. Women had even fewer rights than children. Divorce by mutual consent was abolished in 1804.

Other French Napoleonic-era codes
The draft Military Code was presented to Napoleon by the special commission headed by Pierre Daru in June 1805; however, as the War of the Third Coalition progressed, the code was put aside and never implemented. In 1791, Louis Michel le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau presented a new criminal code to the National Constituent Assembly. He explained that it outlawed only "true crimes", and not "phony offences created by superstition, feudalism, the tax system, and [royal] despotism". He did not list the crimes "created by superstition". The new penal code did not mention blasphemy, heresy, sacrilege, witchcraft, incest, or homosexuality, which led to these former offences being swiftly decriminalised. In 1810, a new criminal code was issued under Napoleon. As with the Penal Code of 1791, it did not contain provisions for religious crimes, incest, or homosexuality.

 * After an overhaul of the entire legal system, the new code of civil procedure was adopted in 1806.

 * The commercial code (code de commerce) was adopted in 1807. The kernel of the commercial code is the Book III, "Of The Different Modes of Acquiring Property", of the Napoleonic Code, which sets out norms for contracts and transactions.

 * Code d'instruction: In 1808, the code d'instruction criminelle was published, laying out criminal procedure. The parlement system from before the Revolution, had been much abused, and the criminal courts established by the Revolution were complex and ineffective, subject to many local pressures. The genesis of this code resulted in much debate and the basis of the modern inquisitorial system of criminal courts in France and many civil law countries. It has significantly changed since, especially with regard to the rights of the defendant.

The French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen enunciated the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Concerned by the possibility of arbitrary arrest and detention, or excessive remand, Napoleon remarked that care should be taken to preserve personal freedoms, especially before the Imperial Court: "these courts would have a great strength, they should be prohibited from abusing this situation against weak citizens without connections." However, remand still was usual for defendants suspected of serious crimes such as murder.

The possibility of lengthy remand periods was one criticism, particularly voiced in common law countries, of the Napoleonic Code and its de facto presumption of guilt. Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor into a single role. However, with the work of the juge d'instruction accomplished, the trial itself did not have the same de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly required jurors not betray the interests of the defendants or ignore their defence.

The rules governing court proceedings gave significant power to the prosecution; however, criminal justice in European countries in those days tended to repression. For instance, it was only in 1836 that prisoners charged with a felony were given a formal right to counsel in England. In comparison, article 294 of the Napoleonic Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the defendant access to a lawyer before a Cour d'assises, and mandated the court to appoint a lawyer for the defendants who did not have one. (Failing to do so nullified the proceedings.)

Whether or not the Cour d'assises, which judges severe crimes, should operate with a jury was a topic of considerable controversy. Napoleon supported jury trials (or petit jury), and they were finally adopted. On the other hand, Napoleon opposed the indictment jury ("grand jury" of common law countries), and preferred to assign this task to the criminal division of the Court of Appeals. Special courts were created to judge criminals who might intimidate the jury.

French codes in the 21st century
The French codes, now more than 60 in number, are frequently amended, as well as judicially re-interpreted. Therefore, for over a century all of the codes in force have been documented in the annually revised editions published by Dalloz (Paris). These editions consist of thorough annotations, with references to other codes, relevant statutes, judicial decisions (even if unpublished), and international instruments. The "small (petit)" version of the Civil Code in this form is nearly 3,000 pages, available in print and online. Additional material, including scholarly articles, is added in the larger "expert (expert)" version and the still larger "mega (méga)" version, both of which are available in print and on searchable CD-ROM. By this stage, it has been suggested, the Civil Code has become "less a book than a database".

The sheer number of codes, together with digitisation, led the Commission supérieure de codification to reflect in its annual report for 2011:

"The Commission observes that the age of drawing up new codes is probably reaching its end. The aim of a nearly complete codification of the law is no longer pursued, for three reasons: firstly, the technical developments by which texts are provided in non-physical form offer to users modes of access that are comparable in many ways to those available through a code; secondly, the creation of new codes encounters a kind of law of diminishing returns in that, the more progress that is made in the development of new codes, the trickier it becomes to determine in which code particular provisions should be located; and, finally, it is clear that certain kinds of provision [...] are unsuitable for codification, since codification makes sense only when it involves provisions that possess sufficient generality."

A year later, the Commission recommended that, after its current codification projects were completed, there should not be any further codes; an additional reason was government delay in publishing reforms that the Commission had completed. The government responded encouragingly in March 2013, but the Commission complains that this has not been followed through; in particular, that the government has abandoned its plan for a public service code (code général de la fonction publique).

Codes in other countries
Even though the Napoleonic Code was not the first civil code and did not represent the whole of his empire, it was one of the most influential. It was adopted in many countries occupied by the French during the Napoleonic Wars. In the German regions on the west bank of the Rhine (Rhenish Palatinate and Prussian Rhine Province), the former Duchy of Berg and the Grand Duchy of Baden, the Napoleonic Code was influential until the introduction of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in 1900 as the first common civil code for the entire German Empire.

A number of factors have been shown by Arvind and Stirton to have had a determinative role in the decision by the German states to receive the code, including territorial concerns, Napoleonic control and influence, the strength of central state institutions, a feudal economy and society, rule by liberal (enlightened despotic) rulers, nativism among the governing elites, and popular anti-French sentiment.

A civil code with Napoleonic code influences was also adopted in 1864 in Romania, and remained in force until 2011.

The term "Napoleonic Code" is also used to refer to legal codes of other jurisdictions that are influenced by the French Code Napoléon, especially the Civil Code of Lower Canada (replaced in 1994 by the Civil Code of Quebec), mainly derived from the Coutume de Paris, which the British continued to use in Canada following the 1763 Treaty of Paris. However, most of the laws in Latin American countries are not heavily influenced on the Napoleonic Code, as the Spanish and Portuguese versions of the civil code formed the foundation of the Latin American legal systems e.g. the Chilean, Mexican, and Puerto Rican civil codes.

In Mauritius, the Civil Code, which originates from the Napoleonic Code, represents an important primary source of law and provides for the rights of individuals, matrimonial regimes, contract law, and property law, amongst others. The French Civil Code was extended to Mauritius under the title Code Napoléon by decree of Charles Mathieu Isidore Decaen, Capitaine-General, on 21 April 1808. The Code was modified and embodied in Chapter 179 of the Revised Laws of Mauritius 1945, edited by Sir Charlton Lane, former Chief Justice of Mauritius. The 1808 decree was repealed by Act 9 of 1983, but the Revision of Laws Act which was enacted in 1974, made provision, in section 7, for the publication of the Code under the title "Code Civil Mauricien."

In the United States, the legal system is largely based on English common law. But the state of Louisiana is unique in having a strong influence from French and Spanish legal traditions on its civil code. Spanish and French colonial forces quarreled over Louisiana during most of the 1700s, with Spain ultimately ceding the territory to France in 1800, which in turn sold the territory to the United States in 1803. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants states control of laws not specifically given to the federal government, so Louisiana's legal system retains many French elements. Examples of the practical legal differences between Louisiana and the other states include the bar exam and legal standards of practice for attorneys in Louisiana being significantly different from other states; Louisiana is the only U.S. state to practice forced inheritance of an estate; additionally, some of Louisiana's laws clash with the Uniform Commercial Code practiced by the other 49 states.

General and cited references

 * G. Levasseur, "Napoléon et l’élaboration des codes répressifs", in Mélanges en hommage à Jean Imbert (Paris, PUF, 1989) p. 371
 * Code Pénal and Code d'Instruction Criminelle – Original French Texts and other old legislation

title: Napoleonic Code