text:
Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

Karin Vogel's place in line
I'm wondering why we are using an article from 2011 that is now extremely outdated (considering the number of births, deaths and now re-additions of non-Catholics who married Catholics) to include Karin Vogel's incorrect position in the line of succession? The article is based on Dan Willis' research and he clearly stated on the site that his list includes Roman Catholics. I'm just curious as to why it's acceptable to use his site to list an incorrect number for Ms. Vogel, but not to include the Lascelles or the Fifes, etc etc. Does it count as original research to point out that her exact number on his list is incorrect because it includes Catholics? Morhange (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think it would make sense to include that she was, as of 2011, the last person in the list. However, there have been a number of births, deaths, and overall changes to the succession that would change her actual number potentially rather drastically.  It should be changed to "As of 2011, Karin Vogel was the last person in the line of succession to the throne." Psunshine87 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 * If the usage explicitly states the date (2011) and inclusion of Catholics, it passes muster as a reliable source not known to be conveying error. The notability lies in the fact that it's approximately indicative of how vast the number of people in succession to a prominent throne has grown and is the kind of datum in which many of those browsing this article are reasonably likely to take some interest. A greater concern is an attached, unacknowledged inaccuracy in the article: The Act of Settlement 1701 altered the dynastic order to exclude some, thus moving others forward. But it didn't declare or constitute a finite limit to the succession in the descent of the Electress Sophia. There were then and are now other legitimate descendants of British kings prior to James I, the grandfather through whom Sophia inherited her right to the throne. If all of Sophia's eligible descendants were wiped out, there would still be heirs of the blood royal entitled to succeed to the the throne. FactStraight (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, William Blackstone explains here why it is limited to Sophia's descendants. Richard75 (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Given that, whether or not the state of affairs at the time the act was passed would have made such speculative reasoning notable, and that there is nothing to show it was in fact ever proposed before or after Blackstone's time, it is frankly too late to start such a hare running so long after Blackstone, unless some respected source can be shown to have argued to the contrary; nor is this article the place to gratify the supposed enthusiasm of amateur historians or to excite the curiosity of casual browsers, who if keen enough can follow their own calculations, without encouragement to that end from an article intended to offer factually based information. In the unlikely event of the line of succession determined by the act ending for want of heirs, there is no prospect of any credible claim to the Crown by persons otherwise descended from any earlier monarch.  James II's 'abdication..rendered the throne absoloutely and completely vacant', per Blackstone. Qexigator (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But the source is conveying error. The fact that it includes Catholics in its numbering automatically makes the number given incorrect. Let's assum for a second that at the time of the 2011 article, Mr. Reitweisner's article was completely accurate with regard to listing every single living descendant of Sophia of Hannover. That still makes Ms. Vogel's position in the line of succession incorrect. She could not have been 4,973rd in line at the time because many of the 4,972 people ahead of her were either Catholics or married to a Catholic (which was, in 2011, a condition of exclusion). The old full list that we used to maintain lists her at around 2,514th in line, and even that is questionable. Personally, I think the number should be removed. She was not 4,973rd in line at the time then, and is not 4,973rd in line now, and including a specific number when even the original source notes that their list includes all descendants regardless of religious status seems inaccurate. Morhange (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording of the statement says "reported to be". Perhaps we should avoid the weasel-wording and provide in-text attribution, i.e., reported by whom.  Also, Blackstone is a good primary source for the Whig view in his time, but not necessarily the final word.  Had there been no eligible heirs of the body of Sophia, it is possible that the the monarchy would have passed on anyway, but without sources we could not say anything.  It is best and consistent with policy to only report what sources say and not speculate about whether they are correct.  TFD (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Given that the main purpose of this article is to give information about the curent line of succession, as listed in it, annotated and explained, why do we have this in the article anyway?
 * The 4,973rd and last person in line was reported in 2011 to be Karin Vogel (born 1973) from Rostock, Germany. .
 * It was of little relevance to this article at the time it was reported, and even less so now. If anywhere it should be in Succession to the British throne as the main article. If it is not noteworthy there, nor is it it here. Qexigator (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Reitwiesner's list does not take any account of exclusions under the Royal Marriages Act and nor does the text following the present list. AnthonyCamp (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
 * They no longer apply though. The 2013 act legitimizes all those marriages. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am no expert on the 2013 Act but I had understood that Subsection 5 of Section 3 (as it says) "applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown". AnthonyCamp (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
 * So it does. I'd missed that clause. DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015: children of Nicholas Windsor
I think the two eldest sons (and possibly the third son too)of Lord Nicholas Windsor are Catholics like their father (as stated in your own Wikipedia article on Lord Nicholas) and therefor should not be included at 37, 38 and 39 - as the recent legislation (The Succession To The Crown Act 2013) now allows spouses of Catholics to appear in the line but not Catholics themselves. 92.30.130.107 (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think they were included in some lists because they were baptised after the lists were published. But the note at the end of the first son's entry makes it clear that they are not included in the most recent list. Richard75 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My edit was undone by someone who pointed out that they were still listed in an old version of the British monarchy website. However we don't know when that version was last updated, and in any event it is no longer the current version. Meanwhile Debrett's and Whitaker have removed them, as this very article already notes, and we have sources such as this one which say that Lord Windsor's children are baptised Catholics. A defunct version of a list on a website can't trump the sources we have. So I am restoring my edit, and anyone who wants to revert it will need to come up with a better source. Richard75 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly the line of succession was updated regularly when a new baby was born, so you can't argue that the website wasn't updated. Secondly, Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor were only excluded in 2003 and 2008 respectively when they were announced to have been confirmed into the Catholic Church, NOT when they were baptized. Lady Amelia Windsor, Albert Windsor and Leopold Windsor was never excluded. And there is a point there. Children should not be excluded only because their parents decided to baptise them when they were babies, the exclusion would only take effect if they really wanted to be in the Catholic Church and wanted to be confirmed. My conclusion is that you are making up things. 2.83.177.118 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above source indicates that Lord Downpatrick and his siblings were baptised Anglican as it mentions Albert Windsor as being the first member of the royal family baptised Catholic since 1688. - dwc lr (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lord St. Andrews' children were all baptised as Anglicans, so that point is moot. You can't just make a claim about the rules of a line of succession based on your personal opinions about when exclusion should take place. Morhange (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They were not removed by Whitaker's. As it says in the article, they were added. DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What do Lord Downpatrick and Charlotte and Lord St Andrews have to do with it? I'm not talking about them. And your view about the exclusion not taking effect until the children really want to be Catholics is not supported by the legislation. It's just your point of view. Our article on Nicholas Windsor says, with sources, that he and his children are Catholics. Now what is your source? Richard75 (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it's time to reduce the line of succession to the people who are currently listed on the monarchy's website. They are the only people who are remotely likely to inherit the throne, in any case. The status of the children of Lord Nicholas Windsor is an academic argument at this point. Since they were added to the list in the first place, someone fairly high up in the household (since I can't imagine the list on the website isn't vetted by someone close to the Queen) thought they WERE in the line of succession, which leads me to believe that the boys would only have been removed from that list if they had chosen to be confirmed Catholic as adolescents. No one knows for sure at this point. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should reduce the list, because it is informative and interesting to have a list of the extended royal family (even though we all know most of these people have virtually zero chances of ever ascending to the throne). As for Nicholas Windsor's children, shouldn't we write "XC" next to their names to show that they are Catholics? Also, is that tabloid source listed for Louis Windsor's birth still relevant? 109.103.87.237 (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not know that they are excluded. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

 * We could avoid all these time-consuming discussions by merely reporting what sources say rather than trying to interpret the succession laws. TFD (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We still need Wikipedia articles to be consistent with each other. We can't just have one article that says they're Catholics and another one which says they are not. The relevant sources are in the Nicholas Windsor article. We can include them here too if you like. Richard75 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is about the line of succession, not people's religion. The sources we use are supposed to weigh all the factors that determine eligibility to succession, then list the heirs.  Our role is merely to report what those sources say, not re-invent the wheel.  "Synthesis" precludes us from doing that.  TFD (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Religion governs eligibility for succession. Richard75 (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it does. But "Synthesis" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In this case do not combine source A saying Catholics cannot ascend the throne and source B saying that so-and-so is Catholic to conclude C that so-and-so cannot ascend the throne. Instead, use secondary sources that make that conclusion. TFD (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of that rule. How annoying! I will look into it later when I have time. Richard75 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, isn't Debrett's a sufficient source (see the footnote)? Richard75 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they're not mentioned in Debrett's at all. It doesn't say whether they are excluded or not. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely they are omitted because they are excluded? Richard75 (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It explicitly names four Catholics and spouses of Catholics as excluded but the children are not mentioned anywhere. No reason is given for their omission. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've found this. Richard75 (talk)|
 * That doesn't look like a reliable source: it has for example copied some things from here. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1701 act precluded persons who are in "Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion."  Children under around 14 cannot take communion and certainly the youngest child is too young to profess anything.  How the law applies to these individuals is something we should leave to rs to determine.  TFD (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RC church traditionally allows child's first communion at age 8+, at parents' discretion. irrespective of the personal opinion of any editors here about age of mental capacity. Obviously, the presumption is that a person in line is eligible and not disqualified unless that is rebutted by a known fact. Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your link says, "It is diocesan policy that First Holy Communion should be received in primary school Year 3 (the school year in which a child reaches the age of 8) or above. A child's readiness for First Holy Communion will be decided by parents, child, priests and catechists together." I doubt they live in the diocese of East Anglia, so it could be different. In any case, the eldest child was born in 2007, hence would possibly be eligible for communion this year at the earliest. TFD (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1_RC doctrine per QUAM SINGULARI, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments on First Communion, August 8, 1910 2_We need not make suppositions if no known fact supports. Is it not the case that, whether or not it is known that they are being brought up as Roman Catholics (are they?), the law of succession excludes a person who is "in communion", and if there is no source for such information, for the purposes of the article they are not excluded? Qexigator (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I think this source will do: It says that the three children in fact are in line. Richard75 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your link is to a numbered list on MSN news, Why not just use this list?  TFD (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When sources differ, it is inappropriate to select one source over another. Per the NPOV policy, all notable alternatives should be included, according to due weight where necessary. DrKiernan (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead, we are trying to determine which list is correct. Why not use the MSN list, which is the only one that provides numbers, and add footnotes to individuals where sources either say that they do not belong on the list or should be on the list but are omitted.  the relevant issue is verifiability, not truth.  In fact we cannot know for certain how laws will be interpreted, nor what the actual facts are.  That is part of the reason why original research is not allowed.  TFD (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know MSN's sources for their list. There's a chance that they might even be using Wiki as a source, since the Royal Family's website snipped its list several months ago. Morhange (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Whitaker's Almanack lists all three boys in line after Amelia and before Helen Taylor. There is an explanatory note saying that Nicholas's children remain in line if they are in communion with the Church of England. DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Prince Henry/Harry
For this article, are regular editors agreed that we continue using 'Henry' in the Tree list and Gallery, for Wiiliam's younger brother, per diff?  Qexigator (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I suggest we call him Prince Henry "Harry" of Wales, so that people stop editing his name every week. Is that too coloquial? 109.103.87.237 (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not as lowbrow as Hank. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind which we use, but I don't really like the Henry "Harry" idea. If stupid people don't understand what a nickname is, that's their problem. We don't have to pander to them. Richard75 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

His name is given as Henry in the Court Circular, Kensington Palace. Qexigator (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note B after 2 May
Note B of the 'Tree list' links to The official website of The Britiish Monarchy, said to be 'retrieved 24 March 2015'. But, given that the link now continues to show no more than 16 (as mentioned in a discussion above), is it time to remove the 'B' from all who follow, down to 55? Qexigator (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

+ If so, will it be necessary to stop the tree list at 17, and add descriptively under ' Remoter Collateral lines':
 * The line continues with the eligible descendants in the nearest collateral line, namely, descendants of Elizabeth's younger sister Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (1930–2002) followed by those in the next collateral lines, descending from Elizabeth and Margaret's grandfather George V, which descend from younger brothers of the Queen's father, George VI: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974) and Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902–1942). After that, the next collateral line descends from Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, only daughter of George V, followed by the other eligible descendants of Edward VII and earlier British monarchs, back to George I.

Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, imo. We already discussed this upthread anyway. Debrett's and Whitaker's Almanack expand on the list anyway. Personally, what I find mindboggling is why, if the BRF website chose to limit their list to descendants of the Queen, did they not include Zara's daughter. Odd. Morhange (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we take it that you agree that note 'B' does not apply to her nor those coming after her? Boggled, as in Love Among the Chickens by P. G. Wodehouse? Perhaps all parties (Mr & Mrs T, Mrs T's ma & pa, and gran and gramp) prefer it that way? Or maybe, influenced by film rights or other celeb prospects? Or maybe they feel it passes the point from the line of royal duty to vacuous trivia? Or the point from being 'royals' to mere 'commoners' or 'ordinary people'? One thing is clear at this stage: she is never likely to be among the first six, but it is not impossible that some day she or her issue may succeed as monarch, as a result of predecessors becoming RC and/or death of predecessors. Maybe that's a boggling supposition? Qexigator (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

+ Or if the line stopped at 16 (Mrs T.), the descriptive text would begin:
 * The line continues with any eligible issue of Princess Anne now living or after born, followed by the eligible descendants in the nearest collateral line...

Qexigator (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16).  Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming heads of collateral lines only after (16)
+A version of the Tree could be retained with 1-16, and listing only the heads of the collateral lines thus:

 * [[Image:Simple silver crown.svg|15px]] King George V (1865–1936)
 * [[Image:Simple silver crown.svg|15px]] King George VI (1895–1952)
 * [[Image:Simple gold crown.svg|15px]] Queen Elizabeth II (born 1926)
 * (1) The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948) $B D W$
 * (2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982) $B D W$
 * (3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013) $B D$
 * (4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015) $B$
 * (5) Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry) (b. 1984) $B D W$
 * (6) The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b. 1960) $B D W$
 * (7) Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988) $B D W$
 * (8) Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990) $B D W$
 * (9) The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b. 1964) $B D W$
 * (10) James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn (b. 2007) $B D W$
 * (11) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003) $B D W$
 * (12) The Princess Anne, Princess Royal (b. 1950) $B D W$
 * (13) Peter Phillips (b. 1977) $B D W$
 * (14) Savannah Phillips (b. 2010) $B D W$
 * (15) Isla Phillips (b. 2012) $B D W$
 * (16) Zara Tindall (née Phillips; b. 1981) $B D W$
 * Any other eligible issue of Princess Anne now living or after born.
 * Any eligible issue of The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (1930–2002) $1952$
 * Any eligible issue of The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974) $1952$
 * Any eligible issue of The Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902–1942).

Editors may wish to consider whether this could resolve what some may see as a dilemma. Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd cut it off with all of the direct descendants of Queen Elizabeth. It looks odd to leave off Zara Tindall's daughter when you've included the children of her older brother in your list. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If truncated, this article becomes pointless. It would just duplicate the list in the main article. 81.156.202.12 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Bookworm: It may look odd to anyone who notices, perhaps relatively few of the readers of the article, but if the rationale is 'wot is listed on Monarchy site', that would be that. We may not know the reason why (if not a mistake) but... well, see above. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 * No, IP, not at all pointless: it is the best way I have seen of presenting the information, in a way that a simple list and descriptive text does not. And it shows anyone who wishes to use it as a model for constructing a continuation of the list, based on the current list if they wish, or to make stand alone lists for the collaterals, working up and down the lines as far as they like. Wikipedia has no copyright in any of this. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is hardly improved by making it less informative! The anonymous IP's point is that the first 17 are already listed on another article, and so this article only exists because it goes further. We are not obliged to confine our list to whatever happens to be on some other website's list. Anyone who wants to know who is next in line after the 17th would very likely come to Wikipedia, so why disappoint them? This article was accurate in March, and it still is. The source cited went further than 17 when it was retrieved and that is good enough. Richard75 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is unrivalled by other Wikipedia articles or other websites, such as those linked at B, D or W, in the manner and convenience of the information it presents, whether naming no more than 16 as shown above and heads of collateral lines, or continuing to name more than 50, as in the current version.  But, if it is now time to remove the 'B' from all who follow 16, will D and W suffice as sources for 17 onward? Whatever B showed in March is no longer there by the link, but if, as we must, refer to D and W as at latest date of publication, we must not fail to note that at B's latest date of publication it stops at 16. Qexigator (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * +But now see, linking Note B to the version current before B dropped the names that are after 16 in the present version. Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Updated version has removed Note B from those after Mrs T. at (16).  Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

After thinking about this, I'm not in favor of truncating the list. Three of the sources (Debrett's, MSN news, and Whitaker's) have a list of around 50. One self-published source (Lewis/Reitwiesner) takes the line further and the remaining reliable source [the official website] is shorter but used to take the line to around 50. Consequently, I think it is reasonable to keep a list here that is as long as most of the reliable sources, which is around the 50 mark. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, the recent revisions have removed such problems as there might have been about sources and presentation of the information. Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Section for logging changes
Further to the above, given that the sequence of the collateral lines remains constant, we may surmise that anyone linking to the pre-26 May version and  noticing a change in the list number there compared with any later version (whether no more than the line headed by the monarch, or, as now including collaterals) would be aware or able to deduce that the change had resulted from a later event, such as birth or death, or gain or loss of eligibility. Charlotte's birth has been the first event, and is clearly mentioned in the article.

But the purpose of the article could be well served by adding a section logging such events as they occur in the future. This would give the informaton while avoiding SYN and OR. Qexigator (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

+The usefulness of the 'List of changes from and after 26 March 2015' section in the current version would be at least as useful for changes in position of unnumbered persons, if numbers after 16 were removed as suggested in the next section below. Qexigator (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Note 3: a problem of numbers
Note 3 about Albert and Leopold Windsor (and may be Louis) puts their position in some doubt, and therefore the 'Tree list' number of all that follow. Would not the integrity of the information in the article be better served if they stopped at (16)? Numbering stems from as far back as the start of the article in January 2003, but currently, the main use for these list numbers is to correlate with other lists, primarily the shorter list at Succession to the British throne. If the numbers stopped at 16, the list's topnote could give a simple explanation, such as:
 * The numbers in the list are the position of the persons named in the line, as shown by the official website of the British Monarchy."Succession"

Qexigator (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That could be a reason to stop at 23 I suppose. But I don't think there is any need to delete Princess Margaret's descendants too. Richard75 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only the unsourced list numbers are here in question, not the names of the persons as listed in the current version. Qexigator (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, the topnote as now revised will suffice to resolve the question in respect of both 1-16 and the rest. Qexigator (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


text:
Japanese literature

Japanese literature throughout most of its history has been influenced by cultural contact with neighboring Asian literatures, most notably China and its literature. Early texts were often written in pure Classical Chinese or lit. 'Chinese writing' (漢文), a Chinese-Japanese creole language. Indian literature also had an influence through the spread of Buddhism in Japan.

During the Heian period, Japan's original culture (lit. 'national culture') developed and literature also established its own style, with the significant usage and development of kana (仮名) to write Japanese literature.

Following the end of the policy and especially during the increasing westernization of the Meiji era, Western literature has also had an influence on the development of modern Japanese writers, while Japanese literature has in turn become more recognized internationally, leading to two Japanese Nobel laureates in literature, namely Yasunari Kawabata and Kenzaburō Ōe.

Nara-period literature (before 794)
Before the introduction of kanji from China to Japan, Japan had no writing system; it is believed that Chinese characters came to Japan at the very beginning of the 5th century, brought by immigrants from Korea and China. Early Japanese texts first followed the Chinese model, before gradually transitioning to a hybrid of Chinese characters used in Japanese syntactical formats, resulting in sentences written with Chinese characters but read phonetically in Japanese.

Chinese characters were also further adapted, creating what is known as, the earliest form of , or Japanese syllabic writing. The earliest literary works in Japan were created in the Nara period. These include the (712), a historical record that also chronicles ancient Japanese mythology and folk songs; the  (720), a chronicle written in Chinese that is significantly more detailed than the ; and the  (759), a poetry anthology. One of the stories they describe is the tale of Urashima Tarō.

Heian literature (794–1185)
The Heian period has been referred to as the golden era of art and literature in Japan. During this era, literature became centered on a cultural elite of nobility and monks. The imperial court particularly patronized the poets, most of whom were courtiers or ladies-in-waiting. Reflecting the aristocratic atmosphere, the poetry was elegant and sophisticated and expressed emotions in a rhetorical style. Editing the resulting anthologies of poetry soon became a national pastime. The poem, now one of two standard orderings for the Japanese syllabary, was also developed during the early Heian period.

The Tale of Genji, written in the early 11th century by female courtier Murasaki Shikibu, is considered the pre-eminent novel of Heian fiction. Other important writings of this period include the (905), a -poetry anthology, and The Pillow Book. The Pillow Book was written by Sei Shōnagon, Murasaki Shikibu's contemporary and rival, as an essay about the life, loves, and pastimes of nobles in the Emperor's court. Another notable piece of fictional Japanese literature was, a collection of over a thousand stories in 31 volumes. The volumes cover various tales from India, China and Japan.

The 10th-century Japanese narrative, The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, can be considered an early example of proto-science fiction. The protagonist of the story, Kaguya-hime, is a princess from the Moon who is sent to Earth for safety during a celestial war, and is found and raised by a bamboo cutter. She is later taken back to her extraterrestrial family in an illustrated depiction of a disc-shaped flying object similar to a flying saucer.

Kamakura-Muromachi period literature (1185–1603)
During the Kamakura period (1185–1333), Japan experienced many civil wars which led to the development of a warrior class, and subsequent war tales, histories, and related stories. Work from this period is notable for its more somber tone compared to the works of previous eras, with themes of life and death, simple lifestyles, and redemption through killing. A representative work is The Tale of the Heike, an epic account of the struggle between the Minamoto and Taira clans for control of Japan at the end of the 12th century. Other important tales of the period include Kamo no Chōmei's (1212) and Yoshida Kenkō's  (1331).

Despite a decline in the importance of the imperial court, aristocratic literature remained the center of Japanese culture at the beginning of the Kamakura period. Many literary works were marked by a nostalgia for the Heian period. The Kamakura period also saw a renewed vitality of poetry, with a number of anthologies compiled, such as the compiled in the early 1200s. However, there were fewer notable works by female authors during this period, reflecting the lowered status of women.

As the importance of the imperial court continued to decline, a major feature of Muromachi literature (1333–1603) was the spread of cultural activity through all levels of society. Classical court literature, which had been the focal point of Japanese literature up until this point, gradually disappeared. New genres such as, or linked verse, and Noh theater developed among the common people, and such as the  were created by Buddhist priests for preaching. The development of roads, along with a growing public interest in travel and pilgrimages, brought rise to the greater popularity of travel literature from the early 13th to 14th centuries. Notable examples of travel diaries include (1432) and  (1480).

Edo-period literature (1603–1868)
Literature during this time was written during the largely peaceful Tokugawa shogunate (commonly referred to as the Edo period). Due in large part to the rise of the working and middle classes in the new capital of Edo (modern Tokyo), forms of popular drama developed which would later evolve into kabuki. The and kabuki dramatist Chikamatsu Monzaemon (1653–1725) became popular at the end of the 17th century, and he is also known as Japan's Shakespeare.

Many different genres of literature made their debut during the Edo period, helped by a rising literacy rate among the growing population of townspeople, as well as the development of lending libraries. Ihara Saikaku (1642–1693) might be said to have given birth to the modern consciousness of the novel in Japan, mixing vernacular dialogue into his humorous and cautionary tales of the pleasure quarters, the so-called ("floating world") genre. Ihara's Life of an Amorous Man is considered the first work in this genre. Although Ihara's works were not regarded as high literature at the time because it had been aimed towards and popularized by the (merchant classes), they became popular and were key to the development and spread of.

Matsuo Bashō (1644–1694) is recognized as the greatest master of haiku (then called ). His poems were influenced by his firsthand experience of the world around him, often encapsulating the feeling of a scene in a few simple elements. He made his life's work the transformation of into a literary genre. For Bashō, involved a combination of comic playfulness and spiritual depth, ascetic practice, and involvement in human society. In particular, Bashō wrote, a major work in the form of a travel diary, considered "one of the major texts of classical Japanese literature."

Fukuda Chiyo-ni (1703–1775) is widely regarded as one of the greatest haiku poets. Before her time, haiku by women were often dismissed and ignored. Her dedication toward her career not only paved a way for her career but it also opened a path for other women to follow. Her early poems were influenced by Matsuo Bashō, although she did later develop her own unique style as an independent figure in her own right. While still a teenager, she had already become very popular all over Japan for her poetry. Her poems, although mostly dealing with nature, work for unity of nature with humanity. Her own life was that of the poets who made their lives and the world they lived in one with themselves, living a simple and humble life. She was able to make connections by being observant and carefully studying the unique things around her ordinary world and writing them down.

was an intellectual movement situated in Edo and centered on the study of Dutch (and by subsequently western) science and technology, history, philosophy, art, and language, based primarily on the Dutch books imported via Nagasaki. The polymath Hiraga Gennai (1728–1780) was a scholar of and a writer of popular fiction. Sugita Genpaku (1733–1817) was a Japanese scholar known for his translation of Kaitai Shinsho (New Book of Anatomy) from the Dutch-language anatomy book Ontleedkundige Tafelen. As a full-blown translation from a Western language, it was the first of its kind in Japan. Although there was a minor Western influence trickling into the country from the Dutch settlement at Nagasaki, it was the importation of Chinese vernacular fiction that proved the greatest outside influence on the development of Early Modern Japanese fiction.

Jippensha Ikku (1765–1831) is known as Japan's Mark Twain and wrote, which is a mix of travelogue and comedy. Tsuga Teisho, Takebe Ayatari, and Okajima Kanzan were instrumental in developing the, which were historical romances almost entirely in prose, influenced by Chinese vernacular novels such as Three Kingdoms (三国志) and Water Margin (水滸伝).

Two masterpieces were written by Ueda Akinari (1734–1809):  and. Kyokutei Bakin (1767–1848) wrote the extremely popular fantasy/historical romance over a period of twenty-eight years to complete (1814–1842), in addition to other. Santō Kyōden wrote mostly set in the red-light districts until the Kansei edicts banned such works, and he turned to comedic. Genres included horror, crime stories, morality stories, comedy, and pornography — often accompanied by colorful woodcut prints.

Hokusai (1760–1849), perhaps Japan's most famous woodblock print artist, also illustrated fiction as well as his famous 36 Views of Mount Fuji.

Nevertheless, in the Tokugawa period, as in earlier periods, scholarly work continued to be published in Chinese, which was the language of the learned much as Latin was in Europe.

Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa-period literature (1868–1945)
The Meiji period marked the re-opening of Japan to the West, ending over two centuries of national seclusion, and marking the beginning of a period of rapid industrialization. The introduction of European literature brought free verse into the poetic repertoire. It became widely used for longer works embodying new intellectual themes. Young Japanese prose writers and dramatists faced a suddenly-broadened horizon of new ideas and artistic schools, with novelists amongst some of the first to assimilate these concepts successfully into their writing.

Natsume Sōseki's (1867–1916) humorous novel (I Am a Cat, 1905) employed a cat as the narrator, and he also wrote the famous novels  (1906) and  (1914). Natsume, Mori Ōgai, and Shiga Naoya, who was called "god of the novel" as the most prominent "I novel" writer, were instrumental in adopting and adapting Western literary conventions and techniques. Ryūnosuke Akutagawa is known especially for his historical short stories. Ozaki Kōyō, Kyōka Izumi, and Ichiyo Higuchi represent a strain of writers whose style hearkens back to early-Modern Japanese literature.

In the early Meiji period (1868–1880s), Fukuzawa Yukichi authored Enlightenment literature, while pre-modern popular books depicted the quickly changing country. Realism was brought in by Tsubouchi Shōyō and Futabatei Shimei in the mid-Meiji period (late 1880s–early 1890s) while the Classicism of Ozaki Kōyō, Yamada Bimyo and Kōda Rohan gained popularity. Ichiyō Higuchi, a rare female writer in this era, wrote short stories on powerless women of this age in a simple style in between literary and colloquial. Kyōka Izumi, a favored disciple of Ozaki, pursued a flowing and elegant style and wrote early novels such as The Operating Room (1895) in literary style and later ones including The Holy Man of Mount (1900) in colloquial language.

Romanticism was brought in by Mori Ōgai with his anthology of translated poems (1889) and carried to its height by Tōson Shimazaki, alongside magazines such as and  in the early 1900s. Mori also wrote some modern novels including The Dancing Girl (1890), The Wild Geese (1911), then later wrote historical novels. Natsume Sōseki, who is often compared with Mori Ōgai, wrote I Am a Cat (1905) with humor and satire, then depicted fresh and pure youth in (1906) and  (1908). He eventually pursued transcendence of human emotions and egoism in his later works including (1914) and his last and unfinished novel Light and darkness (1916).

Shimazaki shifted from Romanticism to Naturalism which was established with his The Broken Commandment (1906) and Katai Tayama's Futon (1907). Naturalism hatched "I Novel" that describes the authors themselves and depicts their own mental states. Neo-romanticism came out of anti-naturalism and was led by Kafū Nagai, Jun'ichirō Tanizaki, Kōtarō Takamura, Hakushū Kitahara and others in the early 1910s. Saneatsu Mushanokōji, Naoya Shiga and others founded a magazine in 1910. They shared a common characteristic, Humanism. Shiga's style was autobiographical and depicted states of his mind and sometimes classified as "I Novel" in this sense. Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, who was highly praised by Soseki, wrote short stories including (1915) with an intellectual and analytic attitude and represented Neo-realism in the mid-1910s.

During the 1920s and early 1930s the proletarian literary movement, comprising such writers as Takiji Kobayashi, Denji Kuroshima, Yuriko Miyamoto and Ineko Sata produced a politically radical literature depicting the harsh lives of workers, peasants, women, and other downtrodden members of society, and their struggles for change.

Pre-war Japan saw the debut of several authors best known for the beauty of their language and their tales of love and sensuality, notably Jun'ichirō Tanizaki and Japan's first winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Yasunari Kawabata, a master of psychological fiction. Ashihei Hino wrote lyrical bestsellers glorifying the war, while Tatsuzō Ishikawa attempted to publish a disturbingly realistic account of the advance on Nanjing. Writers who opposed the war include Denji Kuroshima, Mitsuharu Kaneko, Hideo Oguma and Jun Ishikawa.

Postwar literature (1945–onwards)
World War II, and Japan's defeat, deeply influenced Japanese literature. Many authors wrote stories of disaffection, loss of purpose, and the coping with defeat. Haruo Umezaki's short story shows a disillusioned and skeptical Navy officer stationed in a base located on the Sakurajima volcanic island, close to Kagoshima, on the southern tip of Kyushu. Osamu Dazai's novel The Setting Sun tells of a soldier returning from Manchukuo. Shōhei Ōoka won the Yomiuri Prize for his novel Fires on the Plain about a Japanese deserter going mad in the Philippine jungle. Yukio Mishima, well known for both his nihilistic writing and his controversial suicide by, began writing in the post-war period. Nobuo Kojima's short story "The American School" portrays a group of Japanese teachers of English who, in the immediate aftermath of the war, deal with the American occupation in varying ways.

Prominent writers of the 1970s and 1980s were identified with intellectual and moral issues in their attempts to raise social and political consciousness. One of them, Kenzaburō Ōe, who published one of his best-known works, A Personal Matter in 1964, became Japan's second winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Mitsuharu Inoue had long been concerned with the atomic bomb and continued in the 1980s to write on problems of the nuclear age, while Shūsaku Endō depicted the religious dilemma of the, Roman Catholics in feudal Japan, as a springboard to address spiritual problems. Yasushi Inoue also turned to the past in masterful historical novels of Inner Asia and ancient Japan, in order to portray present human fate.

Avant-garde writers, such as Kōbō Abe, who wrote novels such as The Woman in the Dunes (1960), wanted to express the Japanese experience in modern terms without using either international styles or traditional conventions, developed new inner visions. Yoshikichi Furui related the lives of alienated urban dwellers coping with the minutiae of daily life, while the psychodramas within such daily life crises have been explored by a rising number of important women novelists. The 1988 Naoki Prize went to Shizuko Todo for Ripening Summer, a story capturing the complex psychology of modern women. Other award-winning stories at the end of the decade dealt with current issues of the elderly in hospitals, the recent past (Pure-Hearted Shopping District in Kōenji, Tokyo), and the life of a Meiji period ukiyo-e artist.

Haruki Murakami is one of the most popular and controversial of today's Japanese authors. His genre-defying, humorous and surreal works have sparked fierce debates in Japan over whether they are true "literature" or simple pop-fiction: Kenzaburō Ōe has been one of his harshest critics. Some of Murakami's best-known works include Norwegian Wood (1987) and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle (1994–1995).

Banana Yoshimoto, a best-selling contemporary author whose "manga-esque" style of writing sparked much controversy when she debuted in the late 1980s, has come to be recognized as a unique and talented author over the intervening years. Her writing style stresses dialogue over description, resembling the script of a manga, and her works focus on love, friendship, and loss. Her breakout work was 1988's Kitchen.

Although modern Japanese writers covered a wide variety of subjects, one particularly Japanese approach stressed their subjects' inner lives, widening the earlier novel's preoccupation with the narrator's consciousness. In Japanese fiction, plot development and action have often been of secondary interest to emotional issues. In keeping with the general trend toward reaffirming national characteristics, many old themes re-emerged, and some authors turned consciously to the past. Strikingly, Buddhist attitudes about the importance of knowing oneself and the poignant impermanence of things formed an undercurrent to sharp social criticism of this material age. There was a growing emphasis on women's roles, the Japanese persona in the modern world, and the malaise of common people lost in the complexities of urban culture.

Popular fiction, non-fiction, and children's literature all flourished in urban Japan in the 1980s. Many popular works fell between "pure literature" and pulp novels, including all sorts of historical serials, information-packed docudramas, science fiction, mysteries, detective fiction, business stories, war journals, and animal stories. Non-fiction covered everything from crime to politics. Although factual journalism predominated, many of these works were interpretive, reflecting a high degree of individualism. Children's works re-emerged in the 1950s, and the newer entrants into this field, many of the younger women, brought new vitality to it in the 1980s.

Manga — Japanese comics — have penetrated almost every sector of the popular market. They include virtually every field of human interest, such as multivolume high-school histories of Japan and, additionally for the adult market, a manga introduction to economics, and pornography (hentai). Manga represented between 20 and 30 percent of annual publications at the end of the 1980s, in sales of some ¥400 billion per year. Light novels, a Japanese type of young adult novel, often feature plots and illustrations similar to those seen in manga. Many manga are fan-made.

Literature utilizing new media began to appear at the end of the 20th century. Visual novels, a type of interactive fiction, were produced for personal computers beginning in the 1980s. Cell phone novels appeared in the early 21st century. Written by and for cell phone users, the novels — typically romances read by young women — have become very popular both online and in print. Some, such as Love Sky, have sold millions of print copies, and at the end of 2007 cell phone novels comprised four of the top five fiction best sellers.

Female authors
Female writers in Japan enjoyed a brief period of success during the Heian period, but were undermined following the decline in power of the Imperial Court in the 14th century. Later, in the Meiji era, earlier works written by women such as Murasaki Shikibu and Sei Shonagon were championed amongst the earliest examples of the Japanese literary language, even at a time when the authors themselves experienced challenges due to their gender. One Meiji-period writer, Shimizu Shikin, sought to encourage positive comparisons between her contemporaries and their female forebears in the hopes that female authors would be viewed with respect by society, despite assuming a public role outside the traditional confines of a woman's role in her home (see Good Wife, Wise Mother). Other notable authors of the Meiji period included Hiratsuka Raicho, Higuchi Ichiyo, Tamura Toshiko, Nogami Yaeko and Yosano Akiko.

Nara-period literature

 * Kakinomoto no Hitomaro (c. 660–c. 720): authored numerous and  in the
 * Ōtomo no Yakamochi (c. 718–785): possible compiler of the

Heian-period literature

 * Ariwara no Narihira (825–880)
 * Ono no Komachi (c. 825 – c. 900)
 * Sugawara no Michizane (845–903)
 * Ki no Tsurayuki (872–945)
 * Lady Ise (c. 875 – c. 938)
 * Minamoto no Shitagō (911–983)
 * Michitsuna no Haha (c. 935 – c. 995): author of
 * Akazome Emon (c. 956 – c. 1041)
 * Sei Shōnagon (c. 966 – c. 1017): The Pillow Book
 * Murasaki Shikibu (c. 973 – c. 1025): The Tale of Genji
 * Izumi Shikibu (c. 976 – c. 1027):
 * Lady Sarashina (c. 1008 – c. 1059): author of
 * Saigyō Hōshi (1118–1190)

Kamakura-Muromachi-period literature

 * The Tale of the Heike (c. 1212–1309)
 * (c. 1235)
 * Fujiwara no Teika (1162–1241)
 * Yoshida Kenkō (c. 1283–1352):

Edo-period literature

 * Miyamoto Musashi (c. 1584–1645): The Book of Five Rings
 * Ihara Saikaku (1642–1693)
 * Matsuo Bashō (1644–1694)
 * Chikamatsu Monzaemon (1653–1725)
 * Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1659–1719)
 * Yokoi Yayū (1702–1783)
 * Fukuda Chiyo-ni (1703–1775)
 * Yosa Buson (1716–1784)
 * Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801)
 * Sugita Genpaku (1733–1817)
 * Ueda Akinari (1734–1809)
 * Santō Kyōden (1761–1816)
 * Kobayashi Issa (1763–1828)
 * Jippensha Ikku (1765–1831)
 * Kyokutei Bakin (1767–1848)
 * (travelogue, 1834)
 * (work of human geography, 1837)

Meiji- and Taisho-period literature

 * Nakane Kōtei (1839–1913)
 * Lafcadio Hearn (1850–1904)
 * Mori Ōgai (1862–1922)
 * Futabatei Shimei (1864–1909)
 * Itō Sachio (1864–1913)
 * Natsume Sōseki (1867–1916)
 * Kōda Rohan (1867–1947)
 * Masaoka Shiki (1867–1902)
 * Ozaki Kōyō (1868–1903)
 * Doppo Kunikida (1871–1908)
 * Ichiyō Higuchi (1872–1896)
 * Tōson Shimazaki (1872–1943)
 * Kyōka Izumi (1873–1939)
 * Yonejiro Noguchi (1875–1947)
 * Takeo Arishima (1878–1923)
 * Akiko Yosano (1878–1942)
 * Kafū Nagai (1879–1959)
 * Naoya Shiga (1883–1971)
 * Takuboku Ishikawa (1886–1912)
 * Kan Kikuchi (1888–1948)
 * Ryūnosuke Akutagawa (1892–1927)
 * Kenji Miyazawa (1896–1933)
 * Denji Kuroshima (1898–1943)
 * Motojirō Kajii (1901–1932)
 * Hideo Oguma (1901–1940)
 * Takiji Kobayashi (1903–1933)

Modern literature

 * Kansuke Naka (1885–1965)
 * Yaeko Nogami (1885–1985)
 * Jun'ichirō Tanizaki (1886–1965)
 * Hyakken Uchida (1889–1971)
 * Edogawa Ranpo (1894–1965)
 * Eiji Yoshikawa (1892–1962)
 * Mitsuharu Kaneko (1895–1975)
 * Juza Unno (1897–1949)
 * Shigeji Tsuboi (1897–1975)
 * Chiyo Uno (1897–1996)
 * Masuji Ibuse (1898–1993)
 * Jun Ishikawa (1899–1987)
 * Yasunari Kawabata (1899–1972)
 * Yuriko Miyamoto (1899–1951)
 * Sakae Tsuboi (1899–1967)
 * Fumiko Hayashi (1903–1951)
 * Tamiki Hara (1905–1951)
 * Tatsuzō Ishikawa (1905–1985)
 * Fumiko Enchi (1905–1986)
 * Ango Sakaguchi (1906–1955)
 * Osamu Dazai (1909–1948)
 * Shōhei Ōoka (1909–1988)
 * Sakunosuke Oda (1913–1947)
 * Haruo Umezaki (1915–1965)
 * Ayako Miura (1922–1999)
 * Shūsaku Endō (1923–1996)
 * Ryōtarō Shiba (1923–1996)
 * Kōbō Abe (1924–1993)
 * Toyoko Yamasaki (1924–2013)
 * Yukio Mishima (1925–1970)
 * Osamu Tezuka (1928–1989)
 * Akiyuki Nosaka (1930–2015)
 * Sawako Ariyoshi (1931–1984)
 * Ayako Sono (b. 1931)
 * Hisashi Inoue (1933–2010)
 * Kenzaburō Ōe (1935–2023)
 * Michiko Yamamoto (b. 1936)
 * Kenji Nakagami (1946–1992)
 * Haruki Murakami (b. 1949)
 * Natsuo Kirino (b. 1951)
 * Ryū Murakami (b. 1952)
 * Yōko Ogawa (b. 1962)
 * Banana Yoshimoto (b. 1964)
 * Mieko Kawakami (b. 1976)
 * Sayaka Murata (b. 1979)
 * Natsuko Imamura (b. 1980)
 * Akira Otani (b. 1981)
 * Ao Omae (b. 1992)

Awards and contests
Japan has some literary contests and awards in which authors can participate and be awarded.

The Akutagawa Prize is one of the most prestigious literary awards, and receives wide attention from media.

Online text libraries

 * Japanese Text Initiative, University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center
 * Premodern Japanese Texts and Translations, Michael Watson, Meiji Gakuin University

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

title: Japanese literature


text:
Battle of San Jacinto

The Battle of San Jacinto (Batalla de San Jacinto), fought on April 21, 1836, in present-day La Porte and Deer Park, Texas, was the final and decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. Led by General Samuel Houston, the Texan Army engaged and defeated General Antonio López de Santa Anna's Mexican army in a fight that lasted just 18 minutes. A detailed, first-hand account of the battle was written by General Houston from the headquarters of the Texan Army in San Jacinto on April 25, 1836. Numerous secondary analyses and interpretations have followed.

General Santa Anna, the president of Mexico, and General Martín Perfecto de Cos both escaped during the battle. Santa Anna was captured the next day on April 22 and Cos on April 24. After being held for about three weeks as a prisoner of war, Santa Anna signed the peace treaty that dictated that the Mexican army leave the region, paving the way for the Republic of Texas to become an independent country. These treaties did not necessarily recognize Texas as a sovereign nation but stipulated that Santa Anna was to lobby for such recognition in Mexico City. Sam Houston became a national celebrity, and the Texans' rallying cries from events of the war, "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad", became etched into Texan history and legend.

Mexican constitution overturned
General Antonio López de Santa Anna was a proponent of governmental federalism when he helped oust Mexican President Anastasio Bustamante in December 1832. Upon his election as president in April 1833, Santa Anna switched his political ideology and began implementing centralist policies that increased the authoritarian powers of his office. His abrogation of the Constitution of 1824, correlating with his abolishing local-level authority over Mexico's state of Coahuila y Tejas (Coahuila and Texas), became a flashpoint in the growing tensions between the central government and its Tejano and Anglo citizens in Texas. While in Mexico City awaiting a meeting with Santa Anna, Texian empresario Stephen F. Austin wrote to the ayuntamiento (city council) of Béxar (now San Antonio) urging a break-away state. In response, the Mexican government kept him imprisoned for most of 1834.

Colonel Juan Almonte was appointed director of colonization in Texas, ostensibly to ease relations with the colonists and mitigate their anxieties about Austin's imprisonment. He delivered promises of self-governance and conveyed regrets that the Mexican Congress deemed it constitutionally impossible for Texas to be a separate state. Behind the rhetoric, his covert mission was to identify the local power brokers, obstruct any plans for rebellion, and supply the Mexican government with data that would be of use in a military conflict. For nine months in 1834, under the guise of serving as a government liaison, Almonte traveled through Texas and compiled an all-encompassing intelligence report on the population and its environs, including an assessment of their resources and defense capabilities.

Cos is appointed military governor of Texas
In consolidating his power base, Santa Anna installed General Martín Perfecto de Cos as the governing military authority over Texas in 1835. Cos established headquarters in San Antonio on October 9, triggering what became known as the Siege of Béxar. After two months of trying to repel the Texian forces, Cos raised a white flag on December 9 and signed surrender terms two days later. The surrender of Cos effectively removed the occupying Mexican army from Texas. Many believed the war was over, and volunteers began returning home.

In compliance with orders from Santa Anna, Mexico's Minister of War José María Tornel issued his December 30 "Circular No. 5", often referred to as the Tornel Decree, aimed at dealing with United States intervention in the uprising in Texas. It declared that foreigners who entered Mexico for the purpose of joining the rebellion were to be treated as "pirates", to be put to death if captured. In adding "since they are not subjects of any nation at war with the republic nor do they militate under any recognized flag," Tornel avoided declaring war on the United States.

Santa Anna takes the Alamo
The Mexican Army of Operations numbered 6,019 soldiers and was spread out over 300 mi on its march to Béxar. General Joaquín Ramírez y Sesma was put in command of the Vanguard of the Advance that crossed into Texas. Santa Anna and his aide-de-camp Almonte forded the Rio Grande at Guerrero, Coahuila on February 16, 1836, with General José de Urrea and 500 more troops following the next day at Matamoros. Béxar was captured on February 23, and when the assault commenced, attempts at negotiation for surrender were initiated from inside the fortress. William B. Travis, the garrison commander, sent Albert Martin to request a meeting with Almonte, who replied that he did not have the authority to speak for Santa Anna. Colonel James Bowie dispatched Green B. Jameson with a letter, translated into Spanish by Juan Seguín, requesting a meeting with Santa Anna, who immediately refused. Santa Anna did, however, extend an offer of amnesty to Tejanos inside the fortress. Alamo non-combatant survivor Enrique Esparza said that most Tejanos left when Bowie advised them to take the offer.

Cos, in violation of his surrender terms, forded into Texas at Guerrero on February 26 to join with the main army at Béxar. Urrea proceeded to secure the Gulf Coast and was victorious in two skirmishes with Texian detachments serving under Colonel James Fannin at Goliad. On February 27 a foraging detachment under Frank W. Johnson at San Patricio was attacked by Urrea. Sixteen were killed and twenty-one taken prisoner, but Johnson and four others escaped. Urrea sent a company in search of James Grant and Plácido Benavides who were leading a company of Anglos and Tejanos towards an invasion of Matamoros. The Mexicans ambushed a group of Texians, killing Grant and most of the company. Benavides and 4 others escaped, and 6 were taken prisoner.

The Convention of 1836 met at Washington-on-the-Brazos on March 1. The following day, Sam Houston's 42nd birthday, the 59 delegates signed the Texas Declaration of Independence and chose an ad interim government. When news of the declaration reached Goliad, Benavides informed Fannin that in spite of his opposition to Santa Anna, he was still loyal to Mexico and did not wish to help Texas break away. Fannin discharged him from his duties and sent him home. On March 4, Houston's military authority was expanded to include "the land forces of the Texian army both Regular, Volunteer, and Militia."

At 5 a.m. on March 6, the Mexican troops launched their final assault on the Alamo. After a vicious 90 minute battle, with immense losses to the Mexican forces, the guns fell silent; the Alamo had fallen. Survivors Susanna Dickinson, her daughter Angelina, Travis' slave Joe, and Almonte's cook Ben were spared by Santa Anna and sent to Gonzales, where Texian volunteers had been assembling.

Texian retreat: the Runaway Scrape
The same day that Mexican troops departed Béxar, Houston arrived in Gonzales and informed the 374 volunteers (some without weapons) gathered there that Texas was now an independent republic. Just after 11 p.m. on March 13, Susanna Dickinson and Joe brought news that the Alamo garrison had been defeated and the Mexican army was marching towards Texian settlements. A hastily convened council of war voted to evacuate the area and retreat. The evacuation commenced at midnight and happened so quickly that many Texian scouts were unaware the army had moved on. Everything that could not be carried was burned, and the army's only two cannon were thrown into the Guadalupe River. When Ramírez y Sesma reached Gonzales the morning of March 14, he found the buildings still smoldering. Most citizens fled on foot, many carrying their small children. A cavalry company led by Seguín and Salvador Flores were assigned as rear guard to evacuate the more isolated ranches and protect the civilians from attacks by Mexican troops or Indians. The further the army retreated, the more civilians joined the flight. For both armies and the civilians, the pace was slow; torrential rains had flooded the rivers and turned the roads into mud pits.

As news of the Alamo's fall spread, volunteer ranks swelled, reaching about 1,400 men by March 19. Houston learned of Fannin's surrender on March 20 and realized his army was the last hope for an independent Texas. Concerned that his ill-trained and ill-disciplined force would be good for only one battle, and aware that his men could easily be outflanked by Urrea's forces, Houston continued to avoid engagement, to the immense displeasure of his troops. By March 28, the Texian army had retreated 120 mi across the Navidad and Colorado Rivers. Many troops deserted; those who remained grumbled that their commander was a coward.

On March 31, Houston paused his men at Groce's Landing on the Brazos River. Two companies that refused to retreat further were assigned to guard the crossing. For the next two weeks, the Texians rested, recovered from illness, and, for the first time, began practicing military drills. While there, two cannon, known as the Twin Sisters, arrived from Cincinnati, Ohio. Interim Secretary of War Thomas Rusk joined the camp, with orders from President David G. Burnet to replace Houston if he refused to fight. Houston quickly persuaded Rusk that his plans were sound. Secretary of State Samuel P. Carson advised Houston to continue retreating all the way to the Sabine River, where more volunteers would likely flock from the United States and allow the army to counterattack. Unhappy with everyone involved, Burnet wrote to Houston: "The enemy are laughing you to scorn. You must fight them. You must retreat no further. The country expects you to fight. The salvation of the country depends on your doing so." Complaints within the camp became so strong that Houston posted notices that anyone attempting to usurp his position would be court-martialed and shot.

Santa Anna and a smaller force had remained in Béxar. After receiving word that acting President Miguel Barragán had died, Santa Anna seriously considered returning to Mexico City to solidify his position. Fear that Urrea's victories would position him as a political rival convinced Santa Anna to remain in Texas to personally oversee the final phase of the campaign. He left on March 29 to join Ramírez y Sesma, leaving only a small force to hold Béxar. At dawn on April 7, their combined force marched into San Felipe and captured a Texian soldier, who informed Santa Anna that the Texians planned to retreat further if the Mexican army crossed the Brazos River. Unable to cross the Brazos because of the small company of Texians barricaded at the river crossing, on April 14 a frustrated Santa Anna led a force of about 700 troops to capture the interim Texas government. Government officials fled mere hours before Mexican troops arrived in Harrisburgh (now Harrisburg, Houston) and Santa Anna sent Almonte with 50 cavalry to intercept them in New Washington. Almonte arrived just as Burnet shoved off in a rowboat, bound for Galveston Island. Although the boat was still within range of their weapons, Almonte ordered his men to hold their fire so as not to endanger Burnet's family.

At this point, Santa Anna believed the rebellion was in its final death throes. The Texian government had been forced off the mainland, with no way to communicate with its army, which had shown no interest in fighting. He determined to block the Texian army's retreat and put a decisive end to the war. Almonte's scouts incorrectly reported that Houston's army was going to Lynchburg Crossing on Buffalo Bayou, in preparation for joining the government in Galveston, so Santa Anna ordered Harrisburgh burned and pressed on towards Lynchburg.

The Texian army had resumed their march eastward. On April 16, they came to a crossroads; one road led north towards Nacogdoches, the other went to Harrisburgh. Without orders from Houston and with no discussion amongst themselves, the troops in the lead took the road to Harrisburgh. They arrived on April 18, not long after the Mexican army's departure. That same day, Deaf Smith and Henry Karnes captured a Mexican courier carrying intelligence on the locations and future plans of all of the Mexican troops in Texas. Realizing that Santa Anna had only a small force and was not far away, Houston gave a rousing speech to his men, exhorting them to "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad". His army then raced towards Lynchburg. Out of concern that his men might not differentiate between Mexican soldiers and the Tejanos in Seguín's company, Houston originally ordered Seguín and his men to remain in Harrisburgh to guard those who were too ill to travel quickly. After loud protests from Seguín and Antonio Menchaca, the order was rescinded, provided the Tejanos wear playing cards in their hats to identify them as Texian soldiers.

Battle
The area along Buffalo Bayou had many thick oak groves, separated by marshes. This type of terrain was familiar to the Texians and quite alien to the Mexican soldiers. Houston's army, comprising around 800 men, reached Lynch's Ferry mid-morning on April 20; Santa Anna's 700-man force arrived a few hours later. The Texians made camp in a wooded area along the bank of Buffalo Bayou; while the location provided good cover and helped hide their full strength, it also left the Texians no room for retreat. Over the protests of several of his officers, Santa Anna chose to make camp in a vulnerable location, a plain near the San Jacinto River, bordered by woods on one side, marsh and lake on another. The two camps were approximately 500 yd apart, separated by a grassy area with a slight rise in the middle. Colonel Pedro Delgado later wrote that "the camping ground of His Excellency's selection was in all respects, against military rules. Any youngster would have done better."

Over the next several hours, two brief skirmishes occurred. Using the Twin Sisters, Texians won the first, forcing a small group of dragoons and the Mexican artillery to withdraw. Mexican dragoons then forced the Texian cavalry to withdraw. In the melee, Rusk, on foot to reload his rifle, was almost captured by Mexican soldiers but was rescued by newly arrived Texian volunteer Mirabeau B. Lamar. Over Houston's objections, many infantrymen rushed onto the field. As the Texian cavalry fell back, Lamar remained behind to rescue another Texian who had been thrown from his horse; Mexican officers "reportedly applauded" his bravery. Houston was irate that the infantry had disobeyed his orders and given Santa Anna a better estimate of their strength; the men were equally upset that Houston had not allowed a full battle.

Throughout the night, Mexican troops worked to fortify their camp, creating breastworks out of everything they could find, including saddles and brush. At 9 a.m. on April 21, Cos arrived with 540 reinforcements, bringing the Mexican force to approximately 1,200–1,500 men which outnumbered the Texian aggregate forces of approximately 800 men (official count entering battle was reported at 783). General Cos' men were mostly raw recruits rather than experienced soldiers, and they had marched steadily for more than 24 hours with no rest and no food. As the morning wore on with no Texian attack, Mexican officers lowered their guard. By afternoon, Santa Anna had permitted Cos' men to sleep; his tired troops also took advantage of the time to rest, eat, and bathe.

Not long after Cos arrived with reinforcements, General Houston ordered Smith to destroy Vince's Bridge (located about 8 miles from the Texian encampment) to block the only road out of the Brazos and, thereby, prevent any possibility of escape by Santa Anna. Houston describes how he arrayed the Texian forces in preparation of battle: "Colonel Edward Burleson was assigned the center. The second regiment, under the command of Colonel Sydney Sherman (sic), formed the left-wing of the army. The artillery, under the special command of Col. Geo. W. Hackley, inspector general, was placed on the right of the first regiment, and four companies under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Millard, sustained the artillery on the right, and our cavalry, sixty-one in number and commanded by Colonel Mirabeau B. Lamar...placed on our extreme right, composed our line."

The Texian cavalry was first dispatched to the Mexican forces' far left, and the artillery advanced through the tall grass to within 200 yards of the Mexican breastworks. The Texian Twin Sisters fired at 4:30, beginning the battle. After a single volley, Texians broke ranks and swarmed over the Mexican breastworks, yelling "Remember the Alamo! Remember La Bahia (Goliad)!", to engage in hand-to-hand combat. Mexican soldiers were taken by surprise. Santa Anna, Castrillón, and Almonte yelled often conflicting orders, attempting to organize their men into some form of defense. The Texian infantry forces advanced without halt until they had possession of the woodland and the Mexican breastwork; the right-wing of Burleson's and the left-wing of Millard's forces took possession of the breastwork. Within 18 minutes, Mexican soldiers abandoned their campsite and fled for their lives. The killing lasted for hours.

Many Mexican soldiers retreated through the marsh to Peggy Lake. Texian riflemen stationed themselves on the banks and shot at anything that moved. Many Texian officers, including Houston and Rusk, attempted to stop the slaughter, but they were unable to gain control of the men, incensed and vengeful for the massacres at the Alamo and Goliad, while frightened Mexican infantry yelled "Me no Alamo!" and begged for mercy to no avail. In what historian Davis calls "one of the most one-sided victories in history", 650 Mexican soldiers were killed, 208 wounded, and 300 captured. Eleven Texians were killed and mortally wounded, with 30 others, including Houston, wounded.

Although Santa Anna's troops had been thoroughly vanquished, they did not represent the bulk of the Mexican army in Texas. An additional 4,000 troops remained under the commands of Urrea and General Vicente Filisola. Texians had won the battle because of mistakes made by Santa Anna, and Houston was well aware that his troops would have little hope of repeating their victory against Urrea or Filisola. As darkness fell, a large group of prisoners was led into camp. Houston initially mistook the group for Mexican reinforcements and reportedly shouted out that all was lost.

Mexican retreat
Santa Anna had escaped towards Vince's Bridge. Finding the bridge destroyed, he hid in the marsh and was captured the following day, wearing the uniform jacket of a private. This subterfuge was uncovered when other Mexican prisoners cried out in recognition of their commander. He was brought before Houston, who had been shot in the ankle and badly wounded. Texian soldiers gathered around, calling for the Mexican general's immediate execution. Bargaining for his life, Santa Anna suggested that he order the remaining Mexican troops to stay away. In a letter to Filisola, who was now the senior Mexican official in Texas, Santa Anna wrote that "yesterday evening [we] had an unfortunate encounter" and ordered his troops to retreat to Béxar and await further instructions.

Urrea urged Filisola to continue the campaign. He was confident that he could challenge the Texian troops. According to Hardin, "Santa Anna had presented Mexico with one military disaster; Filisola did not wish to risk another." Spring rains had ruined the ammunition and rendered the roads nearly impassable, with troops sinking to their knees in mud. The Mexican troops were soon out of food and began to fall ill from dysentery and other diseases. Their supply lines had broken down, leaving no hope of further reinforcements. Filisola later wrote "Had the enemy met us under these cruel circumstances, on the only road that was left, no alternative remained but to die or surrender at discretion".

For several weeks after San Jacinto, Santa Anna continued to negotiate with Houston, Rusk, and then Burnet. Santa Anna suggested two treaties, a public version of promises made between the two countries, and a private version that included Santa Anna's agreements. The Treaties of Velasco required that all Mexican troops withdraw south of the Rio Grande and that all private property be respected and restored. Prisoners of war would be released unharmed, and Santa Anna would be given immediate passage to Veracruz. He secretly promised to persuade the Mexican Congress to acknowledge the Republic of Texas and to recognize the Rio Grande as the border between the two countries.

When Urrea began marching south in mid-May, many families from San Patricio who had supported the Mexican army went with him. When Texian troops arrived in early June, they found only 20 families remaining. The area around San Patricio and Refugio suffered a "noticeable depopulation" in the Republic of Texas years. Although the treaty had specified that Urrea and Filisola would return any slaves their armies had sheltered, Urrea refused to comply. Many former slaves followed the army to Mexico, where they could be free. By late May, the Mexican troops had crossed the Nueces. Filisola fully expected that the defeat was temporary and that a second campaign would be launched to retake Texas.

Military
When Mexican authorities received word of Santa Anna's defeat at San Jacinto, flags across the country were lowered to half staff and draped in mourning. Denouncing any agreements signed by a prisoner, Mexican authorities refused to recognize the Republic of Texas. Filisola was derided for leading the retreat and was replaced by Urrea. Within months, Urrea gathered 6,000 troops in Matamoros, poised to reconquer Texas. His army was redirected to address continued federalist rebellions in other regions.

All the Mexican soldiers' bodies lay where they were killed for years or decades after the battle. Houston and Santa Anna both refused to order their soldiers to bury the dead so they lay on the property of Margaret "Peggy" McCormick who owned the land where the battle took place. Houston refused to bury the bodies because the Mexicans cremated all of the executed fallen Texan soldiers at Goliad and the Alamo and Santa Anna for some unknown reason refused to order his soldiers, now prisoners of war, to bury their fallen comrades. McCormick asked Houston in-person to bury the now rotting Mexican corpses, but Houston simply responded that she should be honored that her property is now the site of the battle that won Texan independence. Her family buried a few of the corpses but hundreds of them were never located by them. Many years later the corpses, now skulls and skeletons, were buried in a large trench on the battlefield site but nobody knows to the present day where the mass burial site is located.

Most in Texas assumed the Mexican army would return quickly. Such a large number of American volunteers flocked to the Texian army in the months after the victory at San Jacinto that the Texian government was unable to maintain an accurate list of enlistments. Out of caution, Béxar remained under martial law throughout 1836. Rusk ordered that all Tejanos in the area between the Guadalupe and Nueces rivers migrate either to east Texas or to Mexico. Some residents who refused to comply were forcibly removed. New American settlers moved in and used threats and legal maneuvering to take over the land once owned by Tejanos. Over the next several years, hundreds of Tejano families resettled in Mexico.

For years, Mexican authorities used the reconquering of Texas as an excuse for implementing new taxes and making the army the budgetary priority of the impoverished nation. Only sporadic skirmishes resulted. Larger expeditions were postponed as military funding was consistently diverted to other rebellions, out of fear that those regions would ally with Texas and further fragment the country. The northern Mexican states, the focus of the Matamoros Expedition, briefly launched an independent Republic of the Rio Grande in 1839. The same year, the Mexican Congress considered a law to declare it treasonous to speak positively of Texas. In June 1843, leaders of the two nations declared an armistice.

Republic of Texas
On June 1, 1836, Santa Anna boarded a ship to travel back to Mexico. For the next two days, crowds of soldiers, many of whom had arrived that week from the United States, gathered to demand his execution. Lamar, recently promoted to secretary of war, gave a speech insisting that "Mobs must not intimidate the government. We want no French Revolution in Texas!", but on June 4 soldiers seized Santa Anna and put him under military arrest. Burnet called for elections to ratify the constitution and elect a Congress, the sixth set of leaders for Texas in a twelve-month period. Voters overwhelmingly chose Houston the first president, ratified the constitution drawn up by the Convention of 1836, and approved a resolution to request annexation to the United States. Houston issued an executive order sending Santa Anna to Washington, D.C., and from there he was soon sent home.

During his absence, Santa Anna had been deposed. Upon his arrival, the Mexican press wasted no time in attacking him for his cruelty towards those executed at Goliad. In May 1837, Santa Anna requested an inquiry into the event. The judge determined the inquiry was only for fact-finding and took no action; press attacks in both Mexico and the United States continued. Santa Anna was disgraced until the following year when he became a hero of the Pastry War.

Legacy
The San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960. The site includes the 570 ft San Jacinto Monument, which was erected by the Public Works Administration. Authorized April 21, 1936, and dedicated April 21, 1939, the monument cost $1.5 million (equivalent to $ million in ). The site hosts a San Jacinto Day festival and battle re-enactment each year in April.

Both the Texas Navy and the United States Navy have commissioned ships named after the Battle of San Jacinto: the TEXAN SCHOONER San Jacinto and three ships named USS San Jacinto. There has been one civilian passenger ship named SS San Jacinto.

 * Texas Navy schooner San Jacinto was commissioned in 1839 and decommissioned in 1840 after she was wrecked at Cayos Arcas.
 * The first USS San Jacinto (1850) was a screw frigate launched by the United States Navy in 1850. She was in service with the Africa Squadron in 1860 when she captured the slave ship Storm King. The frigate was in service for most of the American Civil War until she wrecked in the Bahamas in 1865.
 * SS San Jacinto (1903) was a United States civilian passenger ship built in 1903 by the Delaware River Iron Shipbuilding and Engine Works for the New York and Texas Steamship Company. The U.S. Navy considered acquiring the civilian passenger-cargo ship for use during World War I as USS San Jacinto (ID-1531) but never acquired or commissioned her. On April 21, 1942, the ship was sunk by a German U-boat.
 * The second USS San Jacinto (CVL-30) was a United States Navy Independence-class aircraft carrier World War II light aircraft carrier commissioned in December 1943 and decommissioned in 1947.
 * The third USS San Jacinto (CG-56) is a decommissioned guided missile cruiser commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 1988 and decommissioned in 2023.

When the veteran battleship USS Texas (BB-35) was decommissioned in 1948 and made into a museum ship, it was decided to give her a permanent anchorage near the San Jacinto Monument. Her arrival from Baltimore, where she was decommissioned, was timed for April 21, 1948—the 112th anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto.

title: Battle of San Jacinto


text:
Talk:History of Burkina Faso

Copyright question
Possible Copyright violation see http://www.worldrover.com/history/burkina_faso_history.html Are "U.S. State Department Background Notes 1998" public domain ?

Yes, these notes are in the public domian. These notes have seeded many of the national history articles at Wikipedia. LarryQ 11:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

President "Editing"?
It reads : President "Editing" Felix Houphouët-Boigny. Is that an error?

2011 uprising
News reports tend to be very unclear but there is some sore sort of protests/uprising/revolt/revolution going on in Burkina Faso right now, including a curfew on Ouagadougou and some reports that Blaise Compaore has fled. How about an article, 2011 Burkina Faso uprising, based on the French version or its translation here Metaknowledge (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/burkinafaso.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Dead external link
The link "History of Burkina Faso (English version)" is leading to a page on the Oxfam website that no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.251.49 (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Burkina Faso. 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/20120901225038/http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=2484 to http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=2484

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) 15:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Burkina Faso


text:
Talk:Big Cat

Someone, perhaps in making this redirect, seems to have lost the small, but amusing article Big cat. Ortolan88

Sorry. It was empty when I saw it. I've restored it: Big cat -- you'll need to grab an earlier revision -- Tarquin 17:25 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

Moved big cat to Big Cat since it's a proper noun, more or less, and leaves room for discussion of the so-called "big cats" in the uncapitalized version. -- JohnOwens 01:00 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Big Cat


text:
The Raincoats

The Raincoats are a British experimental post-punk band. Ana da Silva (vocals, guitar) and Gina Birch (vocals, bass) formed the group in 1977 while they were students at Hornsey College of Art in London.

Signed to the label Rough Trade, the band released three albums in their early incarnation: The Raincoats (1979), Odyshape (1981), and Moving (1984). They reformed in 1993 and released the album Looking in the Shadows in 1996.

1977–1993
Da Silva and Birch were inspired to make a band after they saw the Slits perform live earlier that year. Birch stated in an interview with She Shreds magazine, "It was as if suddenly I was given permission. It never occurred to me that I could be in a band. Girls didn’t do that. But when I saw The Slits doing it, I thought, ‘This is me. This is mine.’” For the band's first concert on 9 November 1977 at The Tabernacle, the line-up included Birch, da Silva, Ross Crighton (guitar) and Nick Turner (drums). Guitarist Kate Korus (from the Slits and later the Mo-dettes) joined briefly but was replaced by Jeremie Frank. Nick Turner left to form the Barracudas, and Richard Dudanski (ex–the 101ers and later Public Image Ltd.) sat in on drums, while filmmaker Patrick Keiller replaced Frank on guitar.

Late in 1978, the Raincoats became an all female band as they were joined by the Slits' ex-drummer Palmolive and the classically trained violinist Vicky Aspinall, with this line-up making their live debut at Acklam Hall in London on 4 January 1979. Geoff Travis, the founder of Rough Trade Records, recruited Mayo Thompson of the Red Krayola to produce the band at this time; they suggested that Aspinall approach her violin in the style of the Velvet Underground. Managed by Shirley O'Loughlin, the band went on their first UK tour with Swiss female band Kleenex, in May 1979 after Rough Trade released their first single, "Fairytale in the Supermarket". Johnny Rotten was an early admirer of the band, and later stated: "The Raincoats offered a completely different way of doing things, as did X-Ray Spex and all the books about punk have failed to realise that these women were involved for no other reason than that they were good and original". The Raincoats' distinctly uncommercial sound did not appeal to everyone; after witnessing an early performance by the band, Danny Baker remarked that "they are so bad that every time a waiter drops a tray we'd all get up and dance".

On 21 November 1979, Rough Trade released the band's self-titled debut album. Palmolive had left the band in September, shortly before The Raincoats came out, and teenager Ingrid Weiss joined the band on drums. The Raincoats' second album, Odyshape, was released in 1981 and featured Weiss as well as drumming contributions from Dudanski, Robert Wyatt (Soft Machine) and Charles Hayward (This Heat). The Raincoats employed a diverse selection of cheap second-hand instruments such as the balophone, kalimba and gamelan on Odyshape, and the album incorporated British folk, dub basslines, polyrhythmic percussion and elements of free jazz among other world music influences. Its eclectic mix of musical genres has been described as one of the "great lost moments of women-in-rock".

"'The basic theme in rock'n'roll is what goes on between men and women...Rock'n'roll is based on black music. And it's based in the exclusion of women and the ghettoization of blacks. Which is why we want to put a bit of distance between what we do and the rock'n'roll tradition.' — The Raincoats interviewed by Greil Marcus"

In December 1982, the Raincoats recorded a live album at The Kitchen arts space in New York. The Kitchen Tapes was released on cassette by ROIR in 1983.

The Raincoats recorded Moving in 1984. Tired of constant touring and "pulling in different musical directions", the band members began work on solo projects shortly after the album's release. Birch and Aspinall formed Dorothy, while da Silva worked with choreographer Gaby Agis on a series of dance projects and formed Roseland with Hayward.

In 1992, Kurt Cobain of Nirvana went into the Rough Trade Shop in Talbot Road, London in search of a new copy of The Raincoats, and Jude Crighton sent him around the corner to see da Silva at her cousin's antique shop. Cobain wrote passionately about this meeting in the liner notes of Nirvana's Incesticide album. In late 1993, Rough Trade and DGC Records reissued the band's three studio albums, with liner notes by Cobain and Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon.

"'I don't really know anything about the Raincoats except that they recorded some music that has affected me so much that, whenever I hear it I'm reminded of a particular time in my life when I was (shall we say) extremely unhappy, lonely, and bored. If it weren't for the luxury of putting that scratchy copy of the Raincoats' first record, I would have had very few moments of peace. I suppose I could have researched a bit of history about the band but I feel it's more important to delineate the way I feel and how they sound. When I listen to the Raincoats I feel as if I'm a stowaway in an attic, violating and in the dark. Rather than listening to them I feel like I'm listening in on them. We're together in the same old house and I have to be completely still or they will hear me spying from above and, if I get caught – everything will be ruined because it's their thing.' — Cobain's liner notes for The Raincoats"

"'I loved The Slits because of their boldness and that they actually had commercial songs, but it was the Raincoats I related to most. They seemed like ordinary people playing extraordinary music. They had enough confidence to be vulnerable and to be themselves without having to take on the mantle of male rock/punk rock aggression...or the typical female as sex symbol avec irony or sensationalism.' — Gordon's liner notes for Odyshape"

Later, Cobain listed the Raincoats debut album at No. 20 in his 50 favorite albums.

1994–present
O'Loughlin persuaded Birch and da Silva to play a show at The Garage in London in March 1994 with Steve Shelley (Sonic Youth) on drums and Anne Wood on violin to celebrate the album re-releases. They recorded a session for BBC Radio 1's John Peel, which was released as Extended Play on Paul Smith's Blast First and Shelley's label Smells Like Records. Cobain invited them to play on Nirvana's planned UK tour in April, but he died a week before the tour began. The Raincoats released Looking in the Shadows on Rough Trade/Geffen in 1996, produced by Britpop producer Ed Buller (who had previously worked with Suede and Pulp). Musicians included Wood (violin, bass), Heather Dunn (drums) and Pete Shelley (Buzzcocks).

In 1995, the Tim/Kerr label released a Raincoats compilation, Fairytales.

Since 1996, the Raincoats have played some special events such as Wyatt's Meltdown in 2001, and Chicks on Speed's 99 Cents album release party in Berlin in December 2003. Birch and da Silva recorded a cover version of "Monk Chant" for a tribute album of Monks songs called Silver Monk Time, and performed the song live with the Monks at Berlin's Volksbühne in October 2006. They played at Ladyfest in Leeds in April 2007, and the Nuits Sonores Festival in Lyon on 18 May 2007. On 28 March 2009, The Raincoats-Fairytales-A Work in Progress, directed by Birch and produced by the Raincoats, was screened at the British Film Institute in London. On 25 April, the band performed at Donaufestival in Austria.

On 9 November 2009, the Raincoats' debut album was reissued on vinyl on We ThRee (the band's own label) in the UK and on the Kill Rock Stars label in the U.S.

The band performed at Matt Groening's All Tomorrow's Parties festival in May 2010 at Minehead in Somerset. The following week, the Raincoats played their debut album live for an ATP Don't Look Back concert at London's Scala, supported by the Raincoats-influenced band Trash Kit. On 21 November 2010, the Raincoats performed a concert as part of the PopRally series at MoMA in New York City. The band were invited by Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk Hotel to perform their debut album live at the All Tomorrow's Parties festival in March 2012. In December 2011, it was announced that the Raincoats would also appear at the 35 Denton music festival in Texas the same month. The Raincoats invited Angel Olsen to collaborate for the 40th anniversary of Rough Trade at London's Islington Assembly Hall on 3 November 2016.

On 5 October 2017, Jenn Pelly's 33⅓ book The Raincoats, about the band's first album, was published by Bloomsbury.

Discography
Chart placings shown are from the UK Indie Chart.

Studio albums

 * The Raincoats (1979, Rough Trade) No. 5
 * Odyshape (1981, Rough Trade) No. 5
 * Moving (1984, Rough Trade) No. 5
 * Looking in the Shadows (1996, Rough Trade/Geffen)

Singles and EPs

 * "Fairytale in the Supermarket" 7" single (1979, Rough Trade)
 * "Running Away" 7" single (1982, Rough Trade) No. 47
 * "Animal Rhapsody" 12" single (1983, Rough Trade)
 * Extended Play EP (1994, Blast First/Smells Like)
 * "Don't Be Mean" 7"/CD single (1995, Rough Trade)

Live albums

 * The Kitchen Tapes (1983, ROIR)

Compilation albums

 * Fairytales (1995, Tim/Kerr)

Compilation appearances

 * "In Love" on Wanna Buy a Bridge? (1980, Rough Trade)
 * "Shouting Out Loud" on C81 (1981, Rough Trade/New Musical Express)
 * "No One's Little Girl" on (Thanks to Rough Trade For) A Constant Source of Interruption (1990, Rough Trade)
 * "In Love" on Lipstick Traces (1993, Rough Trade)
 * "Off Duty Trip" on Totally Wired (1995, Razor and Tie)
 * "In Love" on Upsalapalooza (1995, WFMU)
 * "Shouting Out Loud" on Seething-ID, a Blast First Complication (1995, Blast First)
 * "No One's Little Girl" on Postpunk Chronicles: Left of the Dial (1999, Rhino)
 * "Fairytale in the Supermarket" on Rough Trade Shops – 25 Years  (2001, Mute)
 * "Lola", the Kinks cover, on Rough Trade Shops Post Punk 01 (2003, Mute)
 * "Animal Rhapsody (Version)" on DJ-Kicks: Chicken Lips (2003, !K7)
 * "Fairytale in the Supermarket" on Left of the Dial: Dispatches from the '80s Underground (2004, Rhino)
 * "Only Loved at Night" on Rip It Up and Start Again – Postpunk 1978–1984 (2006, V2)
 * "Monk Chant", the Monks cover, on Silver Monk Time – A Tribute to the Monks (2006, Play Loud! Productions)
 * "Shouting Out Loud" on Girl Monster (2006, Chicks on Speed)
 * "Honey Mad Woman" on ROIR Post Punk Compilation (2012, ROIR)
 * "Shouting Out Loud" on Death Disco (Mojo Presents a Compendium of Post-Punk Grooves) (2014, Mojo)
 * "Shouting Out Loud" on Recorded at the Automat: The Best of Rough Trade Records (2015, Rough Trade)
 * "Lola", the Kinks cover, on Rough Trade Shops – Covers Vol. 1 (2016, Rough Trade)
 * "Fairytale in the Supermarket" on 20th Century Women (Music from the Motion Picture) (2017, Rhino)

title: The Raincoats