Biographical details.

The early years.

Litten was born the eldest of three sons in a wealthy family in Halle. His parents were Irmgard (née Wüst) and Friedrich Litten (Fritz). Fritz was born and raised Jewish, but converted to Lutheranism in order to further his career as a law professor. He was a nationalist conservative, and served in the army in World War I, earning the Iron Cross, 1st and 2nd Class. He opposed the postwar Weimar Republic. A distinguished jurist and professor of Roman and civil law, he was dean of Königsberg's law school, later becoming rector of that institution. He was also privy counsel ("Geheimer Justizrat") and adviser to the Prussian government. Irmgard was from an established Lutheran family in Swabia, the daughter of Albert Wüst, a professor at the University of Halle-Wittenberg. The family left Halle in 1906 and moved to Königsberg in Prussia.  Litten himself was baptized a Christian, but as a youngster learned Hebrew, choosing it as one of the subjects for his "Abitur" examinations. From his mother, Litten acquired an interest in humanitarian ideas and art, and gained a strong sense of justice for the threatened, persecuted and disenfranchised. While his father was away at war, Litten once took food from the kitchen to give to a beggar, addressing him as "sir". Litten's relationship with his father was strained, and his initial interest in Judaism was out of rebellion; he felt his father's conversion was opportunistic. Litten became interested in a German-Jewish youth group with socialist-revolutionary ideas, joining with a school friend, Max Fürst. Nonetheless, at times, he considered himself a Christian. In Dachau he was registered as a Jew, and had to wear the yellow star on his clothing.  Litten sought out political debate in his youth. He was shaped by important political and social events of the era, such as World War I, the anti-war demonstration in Berlin on 1 May 1916, when Litten was not quite 13, the German Revolution of 1918–1919, and the arrest and murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg by Freikorps soldiers in January 1919. There is an anecdote from Litten's school years, when he was asked in the classroom if they should hang a picture of Paul von Hindenburg, victor of the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg. Litten stated, "I've always been in favour of hanging him."  Litten was pressed into studying law by his father. He was not interested in it, writing in his journal, "When the ox in paradise was bored, he invented jurisprudence." He wanted to study art history, but nonetheless, he approached his law studies in Berlin and Munich with intensity, inspired by the events of the day. The Kapp Putsch, the 1924 court case against Adolf Hitler and other events convinced Litten that Germany was approaching a very dangerous period. His perception that right-wing radicals were receiving more lenient treatment in court than their opponents led to his decision to become a lawyer.  Litten passed his examinations in 1927 with excellent grades and was offered a lucrative job in the Reich Ministry of Justice, as well as a good position in a flourishing law firm. He declined both choosing instead to open a law office in 1928 with Dr. Ludwig Barbasch, a friend who was close to the Communist Party.  Politically Litten was on the left, though independent. He valued his independence and once said, "two people would be one too many for my party." Culturally, Litten was conservative, enjoying classical music and poetry such as that of Rainer Maria Rilke, whose work he could recite. He was an internationalist and was able to read English, Italian, and Sanskrit and enjoyed the music of the Middle East. He had a photographic memory and was considered to have a brilliant intellect.

Cross-examination of Hitler.

In May 1931, Litten summoned Adolf Hitler to testify in the, a court case involving two workers stabbed by four SA men. Litten cross examined Hitler for three hours, finding many points of contradiction and proving that Hitler had exhorted the SA to embark on a systematic campaign of violence against the Nazis' enemies. This was crucial because Hitler was meanwhile trying to pose as a conventional politician to middle class voters and maintained that the Nazi Party was "strictly legal". Though a judge halted Litten's questioning, thus saving Hitler from further damning exposure, newspapers at the time reported on the trial in detail and Hitler was investigated for perjury that summer. He survived the investigation intact, but was rattled by the experience.

The Nazis seize power.

By 1932, the Nazi party was in ascendancy. Litten's mother and friends were urging him to leave Germany, but he stayed. He said, "The millions of workers can't leave here, so I must stay too". Hitler's hatred for Litten was not forgotten and in the early hours of 28 February 1933, the night of the Reichstag fire, he was rousted from his bed, arrested and taken into protective custody. Litten's colleagues Ludwig Barbasch and Professor were also arrested.  Litten was first sent – without trial – to Spandau Prison. From there, he was moved from camp to camp, despite efforts by his mother to free him, along with jurists and prominent people from in and outside Germany, such as Clifford Allen and the "European Conference for Rights and Freedom", which had members from several countries. Litten was sent to Sonnenburg concentration camp, Brandenburg-Görden Prison, where he was tortured, along with anarchist Erich Mühsam. In February 1934, he was moved to the "Moorlager", Esterwegen concentration camp in Emsland and a few months later, he was sent to Lichtenburg.  The treatment Litten suffered was later described to his mother by an eyewitness. Very early on, he was beaten so badly that the Nazis refused to let even his fellow prisoners see him. He was tortured and forced into hard labor. He attempted suicide in 1933 in an attempt to avoid endangering his former clients, but he was revived by the Nazis so that they could interrogate him further. Litten's suicide attempt came at Spandau Prison, after he buckled under torture administered to extract information about the Felsenecke trial (see below). After revealing some information, he was immediately accused in the press as an accomplice to the murder of an SA man. Litten then wrote a letter to the Gestapo, saying that evidence gained in such a manner was not true and that he recanted. Knowing what awaited him, he then attempted to take his life.  Litten's mother wrote about his ordeal, recounting how injuries sustained by him early on left his health permanently damaged. One eye and one leg were injured, never recovering; his jawbone fractured; inner ear damaged; and many teeth knocked out. She also related how, despite her access to many important people in Germany at that time, including Reichswehrminister Werner von Blomberg, Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, Reichsbischof Ludwig Müller, Minister of Justice Franz Gürtner and even then-State Secretary Roland Freisler, she was unable to secure her son's release.  Despite his injuries and suffering, Litten strove to maintain his spirits. At one point, in 1934, his situation improved a little bit when he was moved to Lichtenburg. Initially, it was the same, with more beatings, but then he was allowed to work in the book bindery and the library. On occasion, he was able to listen to music on the radio on Sundays. He was well liked and respected by his fellow prisoners for his knowledge, inner strength and courage. One prisoner wrote about a party (allowed by the SS) at which a number of SS men were in attendance. Unafraid of their presence, Litten recited the lyrics of a song that had meant a lot to him in his youth, "Thoughts are free" (in German, "Die Gedanken sind frei"). The prisoner said that apparently the SS men did not grasp the significance of the words.

Dachau and death.

In summer 1937, Litten was sent to Buchenwald concentration camp for a month, before finally being sent to Dachau. He arrived on 16 October 1937 and was put in the Jewish barracks. The Jewish prisoners were isolated from others because Jews in other countries were then spreading the grim news about Dachau. Litten's last letter to his family, written in November 1937, spoke of the situation, adding that the Jewish prisoners were soon to be denied mail privileges until further notice. All letters from Jewish prisoners at Dachau ceased at this time.  In the face of their depressing situation, the Jews at Dachau made efforts to have culture and discussion in their lives, to keep their spirits up. Litten would recite Rilke for hours and he impressed the other prisoners with his knowledge on many subjects. Underneath, however, Litten was losing hope. On 5 February 1938, after five years of interrogation and torture and a failed escape attempt, Litten was found by several friends from his barracks, hanging in the lavatory, a suicide. The day before his suicide, one of Litten's friends, Alfred Dreifuß, found a noose under Litten's pillow. He showed it to the blockälteste, who said it wasn't the first that had been found in Litten's possession. At the time, Litten was under interrogation in the "bunker" (see photo). When he came back, he was clearly in a suicidal frame of mind, repeating several times that he "must speak with Heinz Eschen", a prisoner who had just died. He also had recently told his friends that he'd had enough of being imprisoned. Another of Litten's Dachau friends, Alfred Grünebaum, said later that Litten was in constant fear of more brutal interrogations and that Litten had given up on ever being free. On the evening of 4 February 1938, it was clear what Litten had in mind, but no one kept watch. In the middle of the night, his bed was discovered empty and his friends found him hanging in the lavatory. Litten wrote a few parting words and that he had decided to take his life.

Highlights of Litten's legal work.

During one of his first trials, Litten caused a sensation, setting the stage for his future as a "labor lawyer". He represented workers who were sentenced in March 1921 to a long term at hard labor in a "Zuchthaus" for organized resistance against a police raid of a mass uprising in the central German industrial region a year earlier. The police raid was ordered by the Prussian Minister of the Interior, Carl Severing. Litten was able to get some of the workers recognized as political actors, making them eligible under the amnesty law of August 1920.  Through his law partner, Barbasch, Litten got involved with the "Rote Hilfe", a solidarity organization founded by Wilhelm Pieck and Clara Zetkin that supported worker's families in dire need during the turbulent early years of the Weimar Republic. In addition, the "Rote Hilfe" arranged legal support and legal defense for workers who were under indictment for their political activities or views. By mid 1929, the "Rote Hilfe" had helped nearly 16,000 arrested workers with legal defense and supported the legal rights of another 27,000 cases.

1929: May Day Trial.

In 1929, Litten defended participants in the 1929 May Day rally in Berlin, known as Blutmai ("Bloody May 1929"). Annual workers' rallies on 1 May had been taking place since 1889. In 1929, however, the rally turned bloody when the police intervened with excessive force. Confrontations between demonstrators and police erupted and the police began firing into crowds and buildings, killing 33 and injuring hundreds, including many bystanders. The workers were charged with severe breach of the peace and with sedition.  In preparation for a defense, Litten founded a committee with Alfred Döblin, Heinrich Mann and Carl von Ossietzky to investigate the event. Litten himself had been at the demonstration and observed the brutal actions of the police. When he went to one man's aid and began writing down the names of victims and eyewitnesses, he was himself beaten by a policeman, even though he had identified himself as a lawyer. Litten filed an indictment against the Berlin police president,, for 33 counts of incitement to commit murder. In his legal notice, he stated:  Litten's approach was to focus on the legality of the police actions. Rather than pursue individual police officers, he sought to hold the authority, the police chief, to account and he held that Zörgiebel had ordered the police to use truncheons and live ammunition against the demonstrators. If the police action was illegal under the criminal code, the resulting deaths were then murders and anything done by the demonstrators to resist was "self-defense in the full legal sense". He argued that Zörgiebel had ordered the police invasion for political, rather than policing considerations. As proof, he produced a 2 May 1929 article from the "Berliner Tageblatt", where Zörgiebel had written a defense of his actions that showed its political basis. According to Prussian law, police could use "necessary measures" to maintain public peace and security or prevent a public danger; in other words, it was to be police work and not the result of political conditions. The indictment of Zörgiebel was rejected by the state prosecutors and Litten appealed. Zörgiebel turned around and filed charges against a worker who had slapped his ear. Litten then took on this worker's defense, arguing that the worker had acted out of justifiable anger about Zörgiebel's 33 murders. The justice rejected Litten's request to produce evidence on the grounds that the 33-count murder indictment against Zörgiebel could be accepted as fact without dropping the culpability of the worker who had hit Zörgiebel on the ear. The objective in Litten's many lawsuits for the victims of the police attacks and raids was not to litigate individual incidents, but rather to warn about the growing fascism in the country. He worked to put Nazi terror on display, in the hopes it would awaken the public to the threat facing them. He saw the methods of the police as approaching those of civil war and as being illegal and worked to prove that in court and to pursue the responsible parties wherever they were, even in the highest political circles. He wasn't interested in creating socialist martyrs, rather he sought acquittal or an appropriate punishment, which caused him some conflicts with the Rote Hilfe and the KPD.

1931: Tanzpalast Eden Trial.

On November 22, 1930, an SA Rollkommando attacked a popular dance hall frequented predominantly by left-wing workers. The victims were members of a migrant workers' association that was holding a meeting at the Tanzpalast Eden ("Eden Dance Palace") in Berlin. Three people were killed and 20 injured in an attack that was planned in advance. The subsequent police investigation was plodding and slow.  Litten used four of the injured to represent the plaintiff, seeking to prove three cases of attempted manslaughter, breach of the peace and assault. In addition to pursuing criminal convictions of the offenders, Litten wanted to show that the Nazis intentionally used terror as a tactic to destroy the democratic structures of the Weimar Republic. Hitler was summoned to appear as a witness in court to that end.  Shortly before, in September 1930, Hitler had appeared in Leipzig as a witness at the "Ulm Reichswehr Trial" against two officers charged with conspiracy to commit treason for having had membership in the Nazi Party, at that time, forbidden to Reichswehr personnel. Hitler had insisted that his party operated legally, that the phrase "National Revolution" was to be interpreted only "politically", and that his Party was a friend, not an enemy of the Reichswehr. Under oath, Hitler had described the SA as an organization of "intellectual enlightenment" and explained his statement that "heads will roll" as a comment about "intellectual revolution".  The court called Hitler to appear on the witness stand on 8 May 1931. Litten set out to show that the SA "Sturm 33" ("Storm 33") was a "rollkommando" (a small, mobile paramilitary unit, generally murderous) and that its attack of the Eden and the resulting murders were undertaken with the knowledge of the party leadership. This would mean that the Nazi Party was not, in fact, a legal and democratic organization and would undermine Hitler's efforts to be seen as a serious politician and statesman.  Hitler never forgot the Eden trial, and held a personal antipathy towards Litten. Years later, Litten's name still could not be mentioned in Hitler's presence. Roland Freisler quoted Franz Gürtner as saying, "No one will be able to do anything for Litten. Hitler turned red with rage from just hearing Litten's name, once bellowing at Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, 'Anyone who advocates for Litten lands in the concentration camp, even you.'"

Excerpts from the trial.

Litten: (...) Did you know that in the circles of the SA there is talk of a special "rollkommando"? Hitler: I haven't heard anything about a "rollkommando". (...) Litten: You said that there will be no violent acts on the part of the National Socialist Party. Didn't Goebbels create the slogan, "one must pound the adversary to a pulp?" Hitler: This is to be understood as "one must dispatch and destroy opposing organizations". (...) (The presiding judge read a question formulated by Litten): Did Hitler, as he named Goebbels "Reichsleiter" (Leader for the empire) of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, know of the passage from his book, where Goebbels declares that fear of the coup d'état cannot be permitted, that parliament should be blown up and the government hunted to hell and where the call to revolution was made again, letter-spaced? Hitler: I can no longer testify under oath, if I knew Goebbels' book at the time. The theme (...) is absolutely of no account to the Party, as the booklet doesn't bear the Party emblem and is also not officially sanctioned by the Party. (...) Litten: Must it not be measured against Goebbels' example, to awaken the notion in the Party, that the legality scheme is not far away, if you neither reprimanded nor shut out a man like Goebbels, rather straightaway made him head of Reich Propaganda? Hitler: The entire Party stands on legal ground and Goebbels (...) likewise. (...) He is in Berlin and can be called here any time. Litten: Has Herr Goebbels prohibited the further dissemination of his work? Hitler: I don't know. [In the afternoon, Litten returned to this subject.] Litten: Is it correct that Goebbels' revolutionary journal, "The Commitment to Illegality" "[Das Bekenntnis zur Illegalität]", has now been taken over by the Party and has reached a circulation of 120,000? (...) I have concluded that the journal is sanctioned by the Party. (...) Presiding judge: Herr Hitler, in point of fact, you testified this morning, that Goebbels' work is not official Party [material]. Hitler: And it isn't, either. A publication is an official Party [organ] when it bears the emblem of the Party.  Hitler (shouting, red-faced): How dare you say, Herr Attorney, that is an invitation to illegality? That is a statement without proof! Litten: How is it possible that the Party publishing house takes over a journal that stands in stark contrast to the Party line? Presiding judge: That doesn't have anything to do with this trial.

1932: Felseneck Trial.

The Felseneck Trial was Litten's last major fight against the Nazi Party. On trial were five Nazis and 19 residents of the Felseneck arbor colony, where many left-wing workers, including Communists and Social Democrats, were living. In January 1932, there was a brawl involving about 150 storm troopers and colony residents. The troopers surrounded the colony and attacked with stones and firearms. Two people were killed, Ernst Schwartz, a member of the Berlin SA and Fritz Klemke, a Communist; several others, including two police officers, were injured. The resulting trial had numerous defendants and hundreds of witnesses.  Litten's meticulousness began to annoy both the presiding judge and the prosecutors, who began to conspire to get Litten removed from the trial. Although there were no legal grounds, the court expelled Hans Litten both as counsel and ancillary counsel for the plaintiff because he had "unfurled unrestrained partisan propaganda in the trial" and "made the courtroom a hotbed of political passions". This decision was set aside by the court of appeals, whereupon the presiding judge and an official from the criminal division declared the trial to be biased and the trial was unable to proceed.  Shortly after that, Litten was again removed from a high court, having been accused of influencing a witness. This time, the action was sustained by the "Kammergericht" (Supreme Court) and the court commented further during an investigation of the defense, that the main trial was generally inadmissible. This caused an uproar in the community of Berlin lawyers, including those who were not well-disposed toward Litten. A meeting of Berlin attorneys demanded a change to the law in order to prevent such a curtailment of the fundamental rights of defense attorneys.  Litten was excoriated in the Nazi press as the "Red Death Defender" and readers were urged to "Put a stop to his dirty work". It was no longer possible for Litten to go out in public without a bodyguard.

Legacy.

Aside from several memorials in Germany, after the war Litten remained unknown for decades because neither western nor communist governments found him suitable for their cold war propaganda. For the west, Litten had been too involved with communists and for communists, Litten's rejection of Stalinism made him a pariah. When East and West Germany were reunited, the lawyers association of Berlin chose to call itself the Hans Litten Bar Association. Every two years, a lawyer is given the "Hans Litten Prize" by the German and European Democratic Lawyers Association. The Israeli lawyer, Leah Tsemel, and Michael Ratner, an American lawyer and the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, have both received the award. There is a memorial plaque for Litten located on the former "Neue Friedrichstraße", renamed in Litten's honor in 1951. The federal and Berlin bar associations ("Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer" and "Rechtsanwaltskammer Berlin") have their headquarters at the Hans Litten Haus, also on Littenstraße (see photo).  In 2008, the first in-depth biography of Litten in English was written. Author Benjamin Carter Hett, a historian and former lawyer, came across Litten while working on another book. Commenting on the relevance of Litten's life today and the treatment he suffered while imprisoned, Hett said:  In 2011 Litten's story was filmed by the BBC. "The Man Who Crossed Hitler" was written by Mark Hayhurst and directed by Justin Hardy. The role of Hans Litten was played by Ed Stoppard. Hayhurst has also written a play on Litten's life, entitled "Taken At Midnight", which premiered at Chichester Festival Theatre in September 2014 and transferred to Theatre Royal, Haymarket, London in January 2015.  Hans Litten is played by German actor Trystan Putter in Season 3 of the TV show Babylon Berlin.

Hans Achim Litten (19 June 1903 – 5 February 1938) was a German lawyer who represented opponents of the Nazis at important political trials between 1929 and 1932, defending the rights of workers during the Weimar Republic.

汉斯·阿希姆·里顿(Hans Achim Litten,1903年-6月19日-1938年-2月5日)是一位德国律师,曾在1929年到1932年之间代理过对手是国家社会主义德意志劳工党(纳粹党)的重要政治案件,为捍卫魏玛共和国期间的工人权利。在1930年的一个案件中,里顿传唤了作为证人的阿道夫·希特勒,并且与他质证了3个小时。希特勒对此经历感到恼怒,那年后,他不允许在面前提到汉斯·里顿的名字。作为报复,希特勒在国会纵火案中逮捕了他和其他进步律师及左派。里顿在一个或多个纳粹集中营中度过了余生,其中遭受了严刑拷打和很多讯问。最后转到了达豪集中营,在那里,他被更加严酷地对待,同时被切断了一切的外部联络。关入集中营的5年之后,他诉诸自杀。尽管德国存在很多对他的记录,但由于他的政治观点既不完全符合西方,又不符合共产党的战后宣传,里顿被忘记多年,直到BBC播放了设定于1931年夏天的柏林的《一个妨碍了希特勒的人》("")电视电影。


Biography.

He was born at Dorpat (today Tartu) in Livonia (then a province of Russia, now in Estonia) where his father, Theodosius Harnack, held a professorship of pastoral theology.  He married Amalie Thiersch on 27 December 1879. Their daughter Agnes von Zahn-Harnack became an activist in the Women's movement.  Harnack studied at the local Imperial University of Dorpat (1869–72) and at the University of Leipzig, where he took his degree; soon afterwards, in 1874, he began lecturing as a "Privatdozent". These lectures, which dealt with such special subjects as Gnosticism and the Apocalypse, attracted considerable attention, and in 1876 he was appointed "professor extraordinarius". In the same year he began the publication, in conjunction with Oscar Leopold von Gebhardt and Theodor Zahn, of an edition of the works of the Apostolic Fathers, "Patrum apostolicorum opera", a smaller edition of which appeared in 1877.  In 1879 he was called to the University of Giessen as "professor ordinarius" of church history. There he collaborated with Gebhardt in "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur" (1882 sqq.), an irregular periodical, containing only essays in New Testament and patristic fields. In 1881 he published a work on monasticism, "Das Mönchtum – seine Ideale und seine Geschichte" (5th ed., 1900; English translation, 1901), and became joint editor with Emil Schürer of the "Theologische Literaturzeitung".  In 1885 he published the first volume of his "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte" (3rd ed. in three volumes, 1894–1898; English translation in seven volumes, 1894–1899). In this work Harnack traced the rise of dogma, which he understood as the authoritative doctrinal system of the church and its development from the 4th century down to the Protestant Reformation. He considered that from its earliest origins, Christian faith and Greek philosophy were so closely intermingled that the resultant system included many beliefs and practices that were not authentically Christian. Therefore, Protestants are not only free, but bound, to criticize it; Protestantism could be understood as a rejection of this dogma and a return to the pure faith that characterized the original church. An abridgment of this appeared in 1889 with the title "Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte" (3rd ed., 1898).  In 1886 Harnack was called to the University of Marburg and in 1888, in spite of violent opposition from the conservative church authorities, to Berlin. In 1890 he became a member of the Academy of Sciences. In Berlin, somewhat against his will, he was drawn into a controversy on the Apostles' Creed, in which the partisan antagonisms within the Prussian Church had found expression. Harnack's view was that the creed contains both too much and too little to be a satisfactory test for candidates for ordination; he preferred a briefer declaration of faith which could be rigorously applied to all (cf. his "Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis. Ein geschichtlicher Bericht nebst einer Einleitung und einem Nachwort", 1892).  In Berlin, Harnack continued writing. In 1893 he published a history of early Christian literature down to Eusebius of Caesarea, "Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur bis Eusebius" (part 2 of vol. 5., 1897); and in his popular lectures, "Das Wesen des Christentums" appeared in 1900 (5th ed., 1901; English translation, "What is Christianity?" 1901). One of his later historical works, "Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten" (1902; English translation, "The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries", in two volumes, 1904–1905), was followed by some important New Testament studies ("Beitrage zur Einleitung in das neue Testament", 1906 sqq.; Engl. trans.: "Luke the Physician", 1907; "The Sayings of Jesus", 1908). Harnack was one of the most prolific and stimulating of modern critical scholars, and brought up in his "Seminar" a whole generation of teachers who carried his ideas and methods throughout the whole of Germany and beyond.  From 1905 to 1921, Harnack was the General Director of the Royal Library at Berlin (from 1918 called the Prussian State Library).  Like many liberal professors in Germany, Harnack welcomed World War I in 1914, and signed a public statement endorsing Germany's war-aims (the Manifesto of the Ninety-Three). It was this statement, with his teacher Harnack's signature on it, that Karl Barth cited as a major impetus for his rejection of liberal theology.  Harnack was one of the moving spirits in the foundation, in 1911, of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft (KWG), and became its first President. The Society's activities were much constrained by the First World War, but in the Weimar Republic period Harnack guided it to be a major vehicle for overcoming the isolation of German academics felt as a result of the war and its aftermath. The society's flagship conference centre in Berlin, the Harnack House, which opened in 1929, was named in his honour. After a long period in U.S. Army hands after World War II it has now resumed the role Harnack envisaged, as a centre for international intellectual life in the German capital, under the management of the KWG's successor organisation, the Max Planck Gesellschaft.

Theology.

Among the distinctive characteristics of Harnack's work were his insistence on absolute freedom in the study of church history and the New Testament (i.e. there were no taboo areas of research that could not be critically examined); his distrust of speculative theology, whether orthodox or liberal; and his interest in practical Christianity as a religious life and not a system of theology. Some of his addresses on social matters were published under the heading "Essays on the Social Gospel" (1907).  Though the four gospels have been regarded as canonical since Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Harnack—like earlier German scholars—rejected the Gospel of John as without historical value regarding Jesus' life: Harnack denied the possibility of miracles but argued that Jesus may well have performed acts of healing that seemed miraculous: "That the earth in its course stood still; that a she-ass spoke; that a storm was quieted by a word, we do not believe, and we shall never again believe; but that the lame walked, the blind saw, and the deaf heard will not be so summarily dismissed as an illusion."

Carl Gustav Adolf von Harnack (Born Harnack; 7 May 1851 – 10 June 1930) was a Baltic German Lutheran theologian and prominent church historian. He produced many religious publications from 1873 to 1912 (in which he is sometimes credited as Adolf Harnack). He was ennobled (with the addition of von to his name) in 1914.

阿道夫·哈纳克( 1851年-5月7日-1930年-6月10日)德国信义宗神学家、教会历史学家,波罗的海德意志人,一生著述颇丰,1914年加封爵位。


Origin of the title "Dalai Lama".

The title "Dalai Lama" was first bestowed by the Mongolian ruler Altan Khan upon Sonam Gyatsho in 1578, a title derived from the Mongolian "Dalai-yin qan" (or Dalaiin khan) one.  Since the time of Genghis Khan, only people who were of his royal lineage were allowed to rule Mongolia. This frustrated many would-be rulers who were not of this line. Altan Khan was the most destructive of these usurpers. He perceived that through the Buddhist faith he could gain legitimacy by claiming to be a reincarnation of Kublai Khan.  Altan Khan chose the Gelug order of Tibetan Buddhism (founded by Tsongkhapa, 1357–1419). In 1577 he invited the leader of this order, Sonam Gyatsho, to come to Mongolia and teach his people.  Sonam Gyatsho proclaimed Altan Khan to be the reincarnation of Kublai Khan, and in return, Altan Khan gave the title Dalai Lama to Sonam Gyatsho. Altan Khan posthumously awarded the title to his two predecessors, making Sonam Gyatsho the 3rd Dalai Lama.

Altan Khan and the conversion of Mongolia.

He was anti-shaminist.  Sonam Gyatso, a monk of the Gelugpa (Yellow Hat) school of Buddhism, was responsible for finding a foreign patron for Gelugpa institutions. He found this patron in the Altan Khan.  Altan Khan first invited the 3rd Dalai Lama to Mongolia in 1569, but apparently the Dalai Lama refused to go and sent a disciple again, who reported back to the Dalai Lama about the great opportunity to spread Buddhist teachings throughout Mongolia. In 1573 Altan Khan took some Tibetan Buddhist monks prisoner.  Altan Khan invited the 3rd Dalai Lama to Mongolia again in 1571 and embraced Tibetan Buddhism. After some hesitation, with followers begging him not to go, Sonam Gyatso's party set out and was met at Ahrik Karpatang in Mongolia where a specially prepared camp had been set up to receive them. Thousands of animals were given to him as offerings and five hundred horsemen had been sent to escort him to Altan Khan's court. When they arrived there, they were greeted by over ten thousand people including Altan Khan dressed in a white robe to symbolize his devotion to the Dharma.  Some sources say this first meeting between Sonam Gyatso and Altan Khan took place in Amdo or near (lake) Kokonor, rather than in Mongolia itself. This inconsistency may be due to some confusion in the texts or the existence of alternative accounts of this important meeting in the Tibetan literature. Besides, while Altan Khan bestowed the title "Dalai" on Sonam Gyatso, some claim that the latter gave the title of "Brahma", the king of religion, to Altan Khan.  Altan Khan had Thegchen Chonkhor, Mongolia's first monastery, built, and a massive program of translating Tibetan texts into Mongolian was commenced. Within 50 years most Mongols had become Buddhist, with tens of thousands of monks, who were members of the Gelug order, loyal to the Dalai Lama.  Sonam Gyatso's message was that the time had come for Mongolia to embrace Buddhism, that from that time on there should be no more animal sacrifices, the images of the old gods were to be destroyed, there must be no taking of life, animal or human, military action must be given up and the immolation of women on the funeral pyres of their husbands must be abolished. He also secured an edict abolishing the Mongol custom of blood-sacrifices. "These and many other such laws were set forth by Gyalwa Sonam Gyatso and were instituted by Altan Khan."  The Third Dalai Lama publicly announced that he was a reincarnation of Phagpa, while Altan Khan was a reincarnation of Kublai Khan and they had come together again to cooperate in propagating the Buddhist religion.  The alliance with the Mongols would later prove instrumental in establishing the Gelug order as the rulers of Tibet during the reign of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama.  Altan Khan died in 1582, only four years after meeting with the Third Dalai Lama. According to legend, Abtai Sain Khan was given a Buddha relic by the third Dalai Lama to help the spread of Buddhism.  Altan Khan was succeeded by his son Sengge Düüreng who continued to diligently support Buddhism, and two years later the 3rd Dalai Lama made another visit to Mongolia. On his way, he founded the monastery of Kumbum at the birthplace of the great teacher and reformer, Je Tsongkhapa.  Gyalwa Sonam Gyatso had also founded Lithang monastery in Eastern Tibet, as well as the small monastery Phende Lekshe Ling in either 1564 or 1565, which became known as Namgyal in 1571, the personal monastery of all the subsequent Dalai Lamas. By 1585 he was back in Mongolia and converted more Mongol princes and their tribes.  The Dalai Lama was again invited to visit the Ming emperor, and this time he accepted but fell ill and died (in 1588, age 45) in Mongolia while returning to Tibet.  Altan Khan's great-grandson, Yonten Gyatso, was selected as the 4th Dalai Lama.  ""To others give the victory and the spoils; The loss and defeat, take upon oneself"" — Sonam Gyatso.

Sonam Gyatso (; 1543–1588) was the first to be named Dalai Lama, although the title was retrospectively given to his two predecessors.

第三世达赖喇嘛(1543年-1588年),法名索南嘉措,《明史》称为锁南坚措,西藏堆龙(今堆龙德庆)人。


Plot.

Jack Hall, an American paleoclimatologist, and his colleagues Frank and Jason, drill for ice-core samples in the Larsen Ice Shelf for the NOAA, when the shelf breaks apart. Jack warns of impending global warming at a UN conference in New Delhi, but US Vice President Raymond Becker dismisses his concerns. Professor Terry Rapson, an oceanographer of the Hedland Centre in Scotland befriends Jack over his views of an inevitable climate shift. When several buoys in the Atlantic Ocean show a severe ocean temperature drop, Rapson concludes Jack's theories are correct. Jack's and Rapson's teams, along with NASA meteorologist Janet Tokada, build a forecast model based on Jack's research.  A massive storm system develops in the northern hemisphere, splitting into three gigantic hurricane-like superstorms above Canada, Scotland, and Siberia. The storms pull frozen air from the upper troposphere into their center, flash-freezing anything caught in their eyes with temperatures below −150 degrees Fahrenheit (−101 degrees Celsius). Meanwhile, the weather worsens across the world; Tokyo is struck by a giant hail storm, sea levels in Nova Scotia rise 25 feet (7 meters) in seconds, the British Royal family are killed when freezing temperatures cause the helicopters transporting them to Balmoral to crash, and Los Angeles is devastated by a tornado outbreak. Following this, President Blake issues an executive order for the FAA to ground all air traffic across the country.  In New York City, Jack's son Sam, and his friends Brian Parks and Laura Chapman participate in an academic decathlon, where they meet new friend JD. New York is soon caught in the North American storm and the weather becomes progressively more violent; resulting in a massive tsunami-like storm surge flooding Manhattan. This forces Sam's group to seek shelter at the New York Public Library, but not before Laura accidentally cuts her leg. While cellphone communications are down, Sam is able to contact Jack and his mother Lucy, a physician, through a working payphone; Jack advises him to stay inside and promises to rescue him. Rapson and his team perish in the European storm, while Lucy remains in a hospital caring for bed-ridden children, where she and her patients are eventually rescued by the authorities.  Upon Jack's suggestion, Blake orders the southern states to be evacuated into Mexico, the northern half doomed to be hit by the superstorm but warned by the government to seek shelters and stay warm. With the storm having now reached Washington, Blake perishes after his motorcade is caught in it, making Becker the new President. Jack, Jason, and Frank make their way to New York against all odds. In Pennsylvania, Frank falls through the skylight of a mall, and sacrifices himself by cutting his rope to prevent his friends from falling in after him. In the library, most survivors decide to head south once the floodwater outside freezes in spite of Sam's warnings, and are later found dead from hypothermia by Jack and Jason; only a few survivors end up taking heed of Sam's advice and burn books to stay warm as the temperatures plunge.  Laura develops blood poisoning from her injury, whereupon Sam, Brian, and JD scour a Russian cargo vessel that had drifted into the city for penicillin, fending off a pack of wolves which escaped from Central Park Zoo. The eye of the North American storm arrives, freezing Manhattan solid, but Sam's group make it inside just in time. Likewise, Jack and Jason take shelter in an abandoned Wendy’s restaurant. The superstorms dissipate and Jack and Jason successfully reach the library, finding Sam's group alive.  Becker, in his first address as President from a refugee camp in Mexico, apologizes on television for his ignorance and vows to send helicopters to rescue survivors in the northern states. Jack and Sam's group are picked up in Manhattan, where many people have survived. On the International Space Station, astronauts look down in awe at Earth's transformed surface, now with ice caps extending across the northern hemisphere.

Production.

"The Day After Tomorrow" was inspired by "Coast to Coast AM" talk-radio host Art Bell and Whitley Strieber's book, "The Coming Global Superstorm", and Strieber wrote the film's novelization. Before and during the film's release, members of environmental and political advocacy groups distributed pamphlets to moviegoers describing the possible effects of global warming. Although the film depicts effects of global warming predicted by scientists (such as rising sea levels, more destructive storms, and disruption of ocean currents and weather patterns), it depicts their occurrence more rapidly and severely than what is considered scientifically plausible; the theory that a superstorm could create rapid worldwide climate change does not appear in the scientific literature.  To choose a studio, writer Michael Wimer created an auction. A copy of the script was sent to all major studios along with a term sheet. They had 24 hours to decide whether to produce the movie with Roland Emmerich directing. Fox Studios was the only studio to accept the terms. Filming began on November 7, 2002 and took place predominantly in Toronto and Montreal.

Visual effects.

"The Day After Tomorrow" features 416 visual effects shots, with nine effects houses, notably Industrial Light & Magic and Digital Domain, and over 1,000 artists working on the film for over a year. Although a miniature set was initially considered according to the behind-the-scenes documentary, for the destruction of New York sequence effects artists instead utilized a 13 block-sized 3D model of Manhattan which was then textured with over 50,000 scanned photographs; due to its overall complexity and a tight schedule, the storm surge scene required as many as three special effects vendors for certain shots. Similar scanner-based techniques were used to create the opening Antarctic fly-through, with icebergs being sculpted from styrofoam and later scanned into computers; the opening sequence was deemed the longest all-CG opening scene in Hollywood, surpassing the space zoom-out from the 1997 film "Contact".

Music.

The score soundtrack for the film was composed by Harald Kloser and released by Varèse Sarabande.

Reception.

Box office.

The film ranked #2 at the box office (behind "Shrek 2") over its four-day Memorial Day opening, grossing $85,807,341. It led the per-theater average, with a four-day average of $25,053 (compared to "Shrek 2"s four-day average of $22,633). At the end of its theatrical run, the film grossed $186,740,799 domestically and $544,272,402 worldwide. It was the second-highest opening-weekend film not to lead at the box office; "Inside Out" surpassed it in June 2015.

Critical reaction.

"The Day After Tomorrow" received mixed reviews from critics, who praised its visual effects and criticized its writing and scientific inaccuracy. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 44% of 219 critics reviewed the film positively, with an average rating of 5.29/10. According to the website, it is "A ludicrous popcorn flick filled with clunky dialogues, but spectacular visuals save it from being a total disaster." Roger Ebert of the "Chicago Sun-Times" described the film as "profoundly silly" but nonetheless said the film was effective and praised the special effects. He gave it three stars out of four.

Political and scientific criticism.

Emmerich did not deny that his casting of a weak president and the resemblance of vice-president Kenneth Welsh to Dick Cheney were intended to criticize the climate change policy of the George W. Bush administration. Responding to claims of insensitivity in his inclusion of scenes of a devastated New York City less than three years after the September 11 attacks, Emmerich said that it was necessary to showcase the increased unity of people in the face of disaster because of the attacks.  Some scientists criticized the film's scientific aspects. Paleoclimatologist and professor of earth and planetary science at Harvard University Daniel P. Schrag said, "On the one hand, I'm glad that there's a big-budget movie about something as critical as climate change. On the other, I'm concerned that people will see these over-the-top effects and think the whole thing is a joke... We are indeed experimenting with the Earth in a way that hasn't been done for millions of years. But you're not going to see another ice age – at least not like that." J. Marshall Shepherd, a research meteorologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, expressed a similar sentiment: "I'm heartened that there's a movie addressing real climate issues. But as for the science of the movie, I'd give it a D minus or an F. And I'd be concerned if the movie was made to advance a political agenda." According to University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, "It's "The Towering Inferno" of climate science movies, but I'm not losing any sleep over a new ice age, because it's impossible."  Patrick J. Michaels, a largely oil-funded climate change denier and former research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia who rejects the scientific consensus on global warming, called the film "propaganda" in a "USA Today" editorial: "As a scientist, I bristle when lies dressed up as'science' are used to influence political discourse." College instructor and retired NASA Office of Inspector General senior special agent Joseph Gutheinz called "The Day After Tomorrow" "a cheap thrill ride, which many weak-minded people will jump on and stay on for the rest of their lives" in a "Space Daily" editorial.  When paleoclimatologist William Hyde of Duke University was asked on Usenet if he would see the film, he answered that he would not unless someone offered him $100. Subscribers to the newsgroup took up the challenge and, despite Hyde's protests, raised the $100. Hyde's review on Google Groups criticized the film's depiction of weather which stopped at national borders; it was "to climate science as "Frankenstein" is to heart transplant surgery".  Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, an expert on thermohaline circulation and its effect on climate, said after a talk with scriptwriter Jeffrey Nachmanoff at the film's Berlin preview:  Clearly this is a disaster movie and not a scientific documentary, [and] the film makers have taken a lot of artistic license. But the film presents an opportunity to explain that some of the basic background is right: humans are indeed increasingly changing the climate and this is quite a dangerous experiment, including some risk of abrupt and unforeseen changes... Luckily it is extremely unlikely that we will see major ocean circulation changes in the next couple of decades (I'd be just as surprised as Jack Hall if they did occur); at least most scientists think this will only become a more serious risk towards the end of the century. And the consequences would certainly not be as dramatic as the'superstorm' depicted in the movie. Nevertheless, a major change in ocean circulation is a risk with serious and partly unpredictable consequences, which we should avoid. And even without events like ocean circulation changes, climate change is serious enough to demand decisive action.  Environmental activist and "Guardian" columnist George Monbiot called "The Day After Tomorrow" "a great movie and lousy science".  In 2008, Yahoo! Movies listed "The Day After Tomorrow" as one of its top-10 scientifically inaccurate films. It was criticized for depicting meteorological phenomena as occurring over the course of hours, instead of decades or centuries. A 2015 "Washington Post" article reported on a paper published in "Scientific Reports" which indicated that global temperatures could drop relatively rapidly (one degree Fahrenheit over an 11-year period) due to a temporary shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation caused by global warming.

Home media.

The film was released on VHS and DVD October 12, 2004 and was released in high-definition video on Blu-ray in North America on October 2, 2007 and in the United Kingdom on April 28, 2008, in 1080p with a lossless DTS-HD Master Audio track and few bonus features. DVD sales were $110 million, bringing the film's gross to $652,771,772.

The Day After Tomorrow is a 2004 American science fiction disaster film co-written, directed, and produced by Roland Emmerich and starring Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ian Holm, Emmy Rossum, and Sela Ward. It is based on the book "The Coming Global Superstorm" by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. The film depicts catastrophic climatic effects following the disruption of the North Atlantic Ocean circulation in a series of extreme weather events that usher in global cooling and lead to a new ice age.

是一部2004年上映由罗兰·艾默瑞奇执导的美国科幻灾难片,描述全球暖化和全球寒冷化后造成的一个新的冰河时期给人类带来的灾难。


Geology.

The Zagros fold and thrust belt was mainly formed by the collision of two tectonic plates, the Eurasian Plate and the Arabian Plate. This collision mainly happened during the Miocene (about 25–5 million years ago or mya) and folded the entirety of the rocks that had been deposited from the Paleozoic (541–242 mya) to the Cenozoic (66 mya – present) in the passive continental margin on the Arabian Plate. However, the obduction of Neotethys oceanic crust during the Cretaceous (145–66 mya), and the continental arc collision in the Eocene (56–34 mya) both had major effects on uplifts in the northeastern parts of the belt.  The process of collision continues to the present, and as the Arabian Plate is being pushed against the Eurasian Plate, the Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau are getting higher and higher. Recent GPS measurements in Iran have shown that this collision is still active and the resulting deformation is distributed non-uniformly in the country, mainly taken up in the major mountain belts like Alborz and Zagros. A relatively dense GPS network which covered the Iranian Zagros also proves a high rate of deformation within the Zagros. The GPS results show that the current rate of shortening in the southeast Zagros is ~, dropping to ~ in the northwest Zagros. The north-south Kazerun strike-slip fault divides the Zagros into two distinct zones of deformation. The GPS results also show different shortening directions along the belt, normal shortening in the southeast, and oblique shortening in the northwest Zagros. The Zagros mountains were created around the time of the second ice age, which caused the tectonic collision, leading to its uniqueness.  The sedimentary cover in the SE Zagros is deforming above a layer of rock salt (acting as a ductile decollement with a low basal friction), whereas in the NW Zagros the salt layer is missing or is very thin. This different basal friction is partly responsible for the different topographies on either side of the Kazerun fault. Higher topography and narrower zone of deformation in the NW Zagros is observed whereas in the SE, deformation was spread more and a wider zone of deformation with lower topography was formed. Stresses induced in the Earth's crust by the collision caused extensive folding of the preexisting layered sedimentary rocks. Subsequent erosion removed softer rocks, such as mudstone (rock formed by consolidated mud) and siltstone (a slightly coarser-grained mudstone) while leaving harder rocks, such as limestone (calcium-rich rock consisting of the remains of marine organisms) and dolomite (rocks similar to limestone containing calcium and magnesium). This differential erosion formed the linear ridges of the Zagros Mountains.  The depositional environment and tectonic history of the rocks were conducive to the formation and trapping of petroleum, and the Zagros region is an important area for oil production. Salt domes and salt glaciers are a common feature of the Zagros Mountains. Salt domes are an important target for petroleum exploration, as the impermeable salt frequently traps petroleum beneath other rock layers. There is also much water-soluble gypsum in the region.

Type and age of rock.

The mountains are completely of sedimentary origin and are made primarily of limestone. In the Elevated Zagros or the Higher Zagros, the Paleozoic rocks can be found mainly in the upper and higher sections of the peaks of the Zagros Mountains, along the Zagros main fault. On both sides of this fault, there are Mesozoic rocks, a combination of Triassic (252–201 mya) and Jurassic (201–145 mya) rocks that are surrounded by Cretaceous rocks on both sides. The Folded Zagros (the mountains south of the Elevated Zagros and almost parallel to the main Zagros fault) is formed mainly of Tertiary rocks, with the Paleogene (66–23 mya) rocks south of the Cretaceous rocks and then the Neogene (23–2.6 mya) rocks south of the Paleogene rocks. The mountains are divided into many parallel sub-ranges (up to wide), and orogenically have the same age as the Alps.  Iran's main oilfields lie in the western central foothills of the Zagros mountain range. The southern ranges of the Fars Province have somewhat lower summits, reaching. They contain some limestone rocks showing abundant marine fossils.

History.

The Zagros Mountains were occupied by early humans since the Lower Paleolithic Period. The earliest human fossils discovered in Zagros belongs to Neanderthals and come from Shanidar Cave, Bisitun Cave, and Wezmeh Cave. The remains of ten Neanderthals, dating from around 65,000-35,000 years ago, have been found in the Shanidar Cave. The cave also contains two later "proto-Neolithic" cemeteries, one of which dates back about 10,600 years and contains 35 individuals. Coon who excavated Bisitun Cave described two hominid remains from the site, a maxilliary upper incisor and a radius shaft fragment, both from a Layer designated F+. These remains were listed but never described fully for the palaeontological community. When they were finally reexamined four decades later, the incisor was found to be of bovine, rather than hominid origin. The radius fragment was found to show Neanderthal affinities, as it is mediolaterally expanded at the interosseus crest. Metrically, it is outside the range of variation of early anatomically modern humans, but in the range of Neanderthals and early Upper Paleolithic humans.  The radius fragment also showed signs of scavenging carnivores or rodents, such as jackal and fox, the remains of which were also found at the site. Wezmeh Child or Wezmeh 1 represented by an isolated unerupted human maxillary right premolar tooth (P3 or possibly P4) of an individual between 6–10 years old. Evidence from later Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic occupations come from Yafteh Cave, Kaldar Cave near Khoramabad, and Warwasi, Malaverd near Kermanshah, Kenacheh Cave in Kurdistan, Boof Cave in Fars and a number of other caves and rock shelters.  Signs of early agriculture date back as far as 9000 BC in the foothills of the mountains. Some settlements later grew into cities, eventually named Anshan and Susa; Jarmo is one archaeological site in this area. Some of the earliest evidence of wine production has been discovered in the mountains; both the settlements of Hajji Firuz Tepe and Godin Tepe have given evidence of wine storage dating between 3500 and 5400 BC.  During early ancient times, the Zagros was the home of peoples such as the ancestors of the Sumerians and, later, the Kassites, Guti, Elamites and Mitanni, who periodically invaded the Sumerian and/or Akkadian cities of Mesopotamia. The mountains create a geographic barrier between the Mesopotamian Plain, which is in Iraq, and the Iranian Plateau. A small archive of clay tablets detailing the complex interactions of these groups in the early second millennium BC has been found at Tell Shemshara along the Little Zab. Tell Bazmusian, near Shemshara, was occupied between 5000 BCE and 800 CE, although not continuously.

Climate.

The mountains contain several ecosystems. Prominent among them are the forest and forest steppe areas with a semi-arid climate. As defined by the World Wildlife Fund and used in their Wildfinder, the particular terrestrial ecoregion of the mid to high mountain area is "Zagros Mountains forest steppe" (PA0446). The annual precipitation ranges from and falls mostly in winter and spring. Winters are severe, with low temperatures often below. The region exemplifies the continental variation of the Mediterranean climate pattern, with a snowy winter and mild, rainy spring, followed by a dry summer and autumn.

Glaciation.

The mountains of the East-Zagros, the Kuh-i-Jupar (), Kuh-i-Lalezar () and Kuh-i-Hezar () do not currently have glaciers. Only at Zard Kuh and Dena some glaciers still survive. However, before the Last Glacial Period they had been glaciated to a depth in excess of, and during the Last Glacial Period to a depth in excess of. Evidence exists of a wide glacier fed along a long valley dropping approximately along its length on the north side of Kuh-i-Jupar with a thickness of. Under conditions of precipitation comparable to current climatic record-keeping, this size of glacier could be expected to form where the annual average temperature was between, but since conditions are expected to have been dryer during the period in which this glacier was formed, the temperature must have been lower.

Flora and fauna.

Although currently degraded through overgrazing and deforestation, the Zagros region is home to a rich and complex flora. Remnants of the originally widespread oak-dominated woodland can still be found, as can the park-like pistachio/almond steppelands. The ancestors of many familiar foods, including wheat, barley, lentil, almond, walnut, pistachio, apricot, plum, pomegranate and grape can be found growing wild throughout the mountains. Persian oak ("Quercus brantii") (covering more than 50% of the Zagros forest area) is the most important tree species of the Zagros in Iran.  Other floral endemics found within the mountain range include: "Allium iranicum", "Astragalus crenophila", "Bellevalia kurdistanica", "Cousinia carduchorum", "Cousinia odontolepis", "Echinops rectangularis", "Erysimum boissieri", "Iris barnumae", "Ornithogalum iraqense", "Scrophularia atroglandulosa", "Scorzonera kurdistanica", "Tragopogon rechingeri", and "Tulipa kurdica". The Zagros are home to many threatened or endangered organisms, including the Zagros Mountains mouse-like hamster ("Calomyscus bailwardi"), the Basra reed-warbler ("Acrocephalus griseldis") and the striped hyena ("Hyena hyena"). Luristan newt ("Neurergus kaiseri") - vulnerable endemic to the central Zagros mountains of Iran. The Persian fallow deer ("Dama dama mesopotamica"), an ancient domesticate once thought extinct, was rediscovered in the late 20th century in Khuzestan Province, in the southern Zagros. Also, Wild Goats can be found almost all over the Zagros mountain range.  In the late 19th century, the Asiatic lion ("Panthera leo persica") inhabited the southwestern part of the mountains. It is now extinct in this region.

Religion.

The entrance to the ancient Mesopotamian underworld was believed to be located in the Zagros Mountains in the far east. A staircase led down to the gates of the underworld. The underworld itself is usually located even deeper below ground than the Abzu, the body of freshwater which the ancient Mesopotamians believed lay deep beneath the earth.

The Zagros Mountains (; ; Lurish: ) are a long mountain range in Iran, Iraq and southeastern Turkey. This mountain range has a total length of. The Zagros mountain range begins in northwestern Iran and roughly follows Iran's western border, while covering much of southeastern Turkey and northeastern Iraq. From this border region, the range roughly follows Iran's coast on the Persian Gulf. It spans the whole length of the western and southwestern Iranian plateau, ending at the Strait of Hormuz. The highest point is Mount Dena, at.

札格罗斯山脉(Zagros Mountains;波斯语:رشته کوه های زاگرس;阿拉伯语:سلسلة جبال زاجروس;库德语:Çîyayên Zagrosê),是伊拉克与伊朗境内最大的山脉,由西北土耳其与两伊边境库尔德斯坦,至东南方波斯湾和霍尔木兹海峡,绵延约一千五百公里,宽三百多公里。


Early life and education.

Moreau was born in Paris, the daughter of Katherine (née Buckley), a dancer who performed at the Folies Bergère (d. 1990), and Anatole-Désiré Moreau, a restaurateur (d. 1975). Moreau's father was French; her mother was English, a native of Oldham, Lancashire, England and of part Irish descent. Moreau's father was Catholic and her mother, originally a Protestant, converted to Catholicism upon marriage. When a young girl, "the family moved south to Vichy, spending vacations at the paternal ancestral village of Mazirat, a town of 30 houses in a valley in the Allier. "It was wonderful there", Moreau said. "Every tombstone in the cemetery was for a Moreau". During World War II, the family was split, and Moreau lived with her mother in Paris. Moreau ultimately lost interest in school at age 16, and after attending a performance of Jean Anouilh's "Antigone", found her calling as an actor. She later studied at the Conservatoire de Paris. Her parents separated permanently while Moreau was at the conservatory and her mother, "after 24 difficult years in France, returned to England with Jeanne's sister, Michelle."

Career.

In 1947, Moreau made her theatrical debut at the Avignon Festival. She debuted at the Comédie-Française in Ivan Turgenev's "A Month in the Country" and, by her 20s, was already one of leading actresses in the theatre's troupe. After 1949, she began appearing in films with small parts but continued primarily active in the theatre for several years — a year at the Théâtre National Populaire opposite among others Gérard Philipe and Robert Hirsch, then a breakout two years in dual roles in "The Dazzling Hour" by Anna Bonacci, then Jean Cocteau's "La Machine Infernale" and others before another two-year run, this time in Shaw's "Pygmalion". From the late 1950s, after appearing in several successful films, she began to work with the emerging generation of French film-makers. "Elevator to the Gallows" (1958) with first-time director Louis Malle was followed by Malle's "The Lovers" ("Les Amants", 1959).  Moreau went on to work with many of the best known New Wave and avant-garde directors. François Truffaut's New Wave film "Jules et Jim" (1962), her biggest success internationally, is centered on her magnetic starring role. She also worked with a number of other notable directors such as Michelangelo Antonioni ("La notte" and "Beyond the Clouds"), Orson Welles ("The Trial", "Chimes at Midnight" and "The Immortal Story"), Luis Buñuel ("Diary of a Chambermaid"), Elia Kazan ("The Last Tycoon"), Rainer Werner Fassbinder ("Querelle"), Wim Wenders ("Until the End of the World"), Carl Foreman ("Champion" and "The Victors"), and Manoel de Oliveira "(Gebo et l'Ombre)".  In 1983, she was head of the jury at the 33rd Berlin International Film Festival. In 2005, she was awarded with the Stanislavsky Award at the 27th Moscow International Film Festival.  Moreau was also a vocalist. She released several albums and once performed with Frank Sinatra at Carnegie Hall in 1984. In addition to acting, Moreau worked behind the camera as a writer, director and producer. Her accomplishments were the subject of the film "Calling the Shots" (1988) by Janis Cole and Holly Dale.

Personal life.

Throughout her life, Moreau maintained friendships with prominent writers such as Jean Cocteau, Jean Genet, Henry Miller and Marguerite Duras, (an interview with Moreau is included in Duras's book "Outside: Selected Writings"). She formerly was married to Jean-Louis Richard (1949–1964, separated in 1951) and then to American film director William Friedkin (1977–1979). Director Tony Richardson left his wife Vanessa Redgrave for her in 1967, but they never married. She also had affairs with directors Louis Malle and François Truffaut, fashion designer Pierre Cardin and the Greek actor/playboy Theodoros Roubanis.  In 1971, she was a signer of the Manifesto of the 343 which publicly announced she obtained an illegal abortion.  Moreau was a close friend of Sharon Stone, who presented a 1998 American Academy of Motion Pictures life tribute to Moreau at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater, academy headquarters in Beverly Hills. Orson Welles called her "the greatest actress in the world", and she remained one of France's most accomplished actresses.

Jeanne Moreau (; 23 January 1928 – 31 July 2017) was a French actress, singer, screenwriter and director. She won the Cannes Film Festival Award for Best Actress for "Seven Days... Seven Nights" (1960) (which she shared with Melina Mercouri for her role in "Never on Sunday"), the BAFTA Award for Best Foreign Actress for "Viva Maria!" (1965), and the César Award for Best Actress for "The Old Lady Who Walked in the Sea" (1992). She was also the recipient of several lifetime awards, including a BAFTA Fellowship in 1996, Cannes Golden Palm in 2003 and César Award in 2008.

珍妮·摩露(,,1928年-1月23日-2017年-7月31日),法国女演员、歌手以及导演,从小喜欢文学和戏剧,后加入法国两家著名的剧团,演出大量戏剧。


Early life.

Needham's father was a doctor, and his mother, Alicia Adelaïde, née Montgomery (1863–1945), was a music composer from Oldcastle, Co. Meath, Ireland. Needham was educated at Oundle School (founded in 1556 in Northamptonshire).

Education.

In 1921, Needham graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. In January 1925, Needham earned a MA (Cantab). In October 1925, Needham earned a DPhil. He had intended to study medicine, but came under the influence of Frederick Hopkins, resulting in his switch to biochemistry.

Career.

After graduation, Needham was elected to a fellowship at Gonville and Caius College and worked in Hopkins' laboratory at the University Department of Biochemistry, specialising in embryology and morphogenesis. His three-volume work "Chemical Embryology", published in 1931, includes a history of embryology from Egyptian times up to the early 19th century, including quotations in most European languages. His Terry Lecture of 1936 was published by Cambridge University Press in association with Yale University Press under the title of "Order and Life". In 1939 he produced a massive work on morphogenesis that a Harvard reviewer claimed "will go down in the history of science as Joseph Needham's "magnum opus,"" little knowing what would come later.  Although his career as biochemist and an academic was well established, his career developed in unanticipated directions during and after World War II.  Three Chinese scientists came to Cambridge for graduate study in 1937: Lu Gwei-djen, Wang Ying-lai and Shen Shih-Chang (沈詩章, the only one under Needham's tutelage). Lu, daughter of a Nanjing pharmacist, taught Needham Chinese, igniting his interest in China's ancient technological and scientific past. He then pursued, and mastered, the study of Classical Chinese privately with Gustav Haloun.  Under the Royal Society's direction, Needham was the director of the Sino-British Science Co-operation Office in Chongqing from 1942 to 1946. During this time he made several long journeys through war-torn China and many smaller ones, visiting scientific and educational establishments and obtaining for them much needed supplies. His longest trip in late 1943 ended in far west in Gansu at the caves in Dunhuang at the end of the Great Wall where the earliest dated printed book - a copy of the Diamond Sutra - was found. The other long trip reached Fuzhou on the east coast, returning across the Xiang River just two days before the Japanese blew up the bridge at Hengyang and cut off that part of China. In 1944 he visited Yunnan in an attempt to reach the Burmese border. Everywhere he went he purchased and was given old historical and scientific books which he shipped back to Britain through diplomatic channels. They were to form the foundation of his later research. He got to know Zhou Enlai and met numerous Chinese scholars, including the painter Wu Zuoren, and the meteorologist Zhu Kezhen, who later sent crates of books to him in Cambridge, including 2,000 volumes of the "Gujin Tushu Jicheng" encyclopaedia, a comprehensive record of China's past.  On his return to Europe, he was asked by Julian Huxley to become the first head of the Natural Sciences Section of UNESCO in Paris, France. In fact it was Needham who insisted that science should be included in the organisation's mandate at an earlier planning meeting. After two years in which the suspicions of the Americans over scientific co-operation with communists intensified, Needham resigned in 1948 and returned to Gonville and Caius College, where he resumed his fellowship and his rooms, which were soon filled with his books. He devoted his energy to the history of Chinese science until his retirement in 1990, even though he continued to teach some biochemistry until 1993. Needham's reputation recovered from the Korean affair (see below) such that by 1959 he was elected as president of the fellows of Caius College and in 1965 he became Master (head) of the College, a post which he held until he was 76.

"Science and Civilisation in China".

In 1948, Needham proposed a project to the Cambridge University Press for a book on "Science and Civilisation in China". Within weeks of being accepted, the project had grown to seven volumes, and it has expanded ever since. His initial collaborator was the historian Wang Ling (王玲), whom he had met in Lizhuang and obtained a position for at Trinity. The first years were devoted to compiling a list of every mechanical invention and abstract idea that had been made and conceived in China. These included cast iron, the ploughshare, the stirrup, gunpowder, printing, the magnetic compass and clockwork escapements, most of which were thought at the time to be western inventions. The first volume eventually appeared in 1954.  The publication received widespread acclaim, which intensified to lyricism as the further volumes appeared. He wrote fifteen volumes himself, and the regular production of further volumes continued after his death in 1995. Later, Volume III was divided, so that 27 volumes have now been published. Successive volumes are published as they are completed, which means that they do not appear in the order originally contemplated in the project's prospectus.  Needham's final organizing schema was: See "Science and Civilisation in China" for a full list.  The project is still proceeding under the guidance of the Publications Board of the Needham Research Institute, directed by Professor Mei Jianjun.

UNESCO.

Needham, along with colleague Julian Huxley, was one of the founders of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Developed in 1945 with the help of Allied governments, UNESCO is an international organization that aims to bring education to regions that had been affected by Nazi occupation. Needham and Huxley advocated for the growth of scientific education as a means to overcome political conflict and hence founded UNESCO in an effort to expand its influence. Composed of representatives from various Allied countries, UNESCO operated on the principle that ideas and information should spread freely among nations. However, Needham disagreed with this initial mode of exchange because of its failure to include nations outside of Europe and America.  To communicate his discordance with the model, Needham wrote and distributed a formal message to others in the organization explaining its flaws. He stated that nations outside of the European-American "bright zone", or primary location of scientific advancement, needed the help of international education the most. He also argued that the lack of familiarity between other nations and those in the bright zone made ideological exchange difficult. Finally, he expressed the notion that other countries had issues disseminating knowledge because they lacked the capital necessary for distribution. Due to these constraints, Needham suggested that most of the organization's support should be given to the "periphery" nations that lie outside of the bright zone.  In addition to supporting periphery nations, Needham incorporated his desire for a non-Eurocentric record of science in UNESCO's mission. To this end, Huxley and Needham devised and an ambitious scholarly project they called "The History of Scientific and Cultural Development of Mankind" (shortened to "History of Mankind")"." The goal of this project was to write a non-ethnocentric account of scientific and cultural history; it aimed to synthesize the contributions, perspectives, and development of oriental nations in the East in a way that was complementary to the Western scientific tradition. This vision was partly influenced by the political climate of the time of its planning in the late 1940s - the "East" and "West" were seen as cultural and political opposites. Working from the belief that science was the universal experience that bound humanity, Huxley and Needham hoped that their project would help ease some of the animosity between the two spheres. The project involved hundreds of scholars from around the globe and took over a decade to reach fruition in 1966. The work is still continued today with new volumes published periodically.

The Needham Question.

"Needham's Grand Question", also known as "The Needham Question", is this: why had China and India been overtaken by the West in science and technology, despite their earlier successes? In Needham's words, "Why did modern science, the mathematization of hypotheses about Nature, with all its implications for advanced technology, take its meteoric rise only in the West at the time of Galileo [but] had not developed in Chinese civilisation or Indian civilisation?" "Gunpowder, the magnetic compass, and paper and printing, which Francis Bacon considered as the four most important inventions facilitating the West's transformation from the Dark Ages to the modern world, were invented in China". Needham's works attribute significant weight to the impact of Confucianism and Taoism on the pace of Chinese scientific discovery, and emphasises the "diffusionist" approach of Chinese science as opposed to a perceived independent inventiveness in the western world. Needham thought the notion that the Chinese script had inhibited scientific thought was "grossly overrated".  His own research revealed a steady accumulation of scientific results throughout Chinese history. In the final volume he suggests "A continuing general and scientific progress manifested itself in traditional Chinese society but this was violently overtaken by the exponential growth of modern science after the Renaissance in Europe. China was homeostatic, but never stagnant."  Nathan Sivin, one of Needham's collaborators, while agreeing that Needham's achievement was monumental, suggested that the "Needham question", as a counterfactual hypothesis, was not conducive to a useful answer: There are several hypotheses attempting to explain the Needham Question. Yingqiu Liu and Chunjiang Liu argued that the issue rested on the lack of property rights and that those rights were only obtainable through favour of the emperor. Protection was incomplete as the emperor could rescind those rights at any time. Science and technology were subjugated to the needs of the feudal royal family, and any new discoveries were sequestered by the government for its use. The government took steps to control and interfere with private enterprises by manipulating prices and engaging in bribery. Each revolution in China redistributed property rights under the same feudal system. Land and property were reallocated first and foremost to the royal family of the new dynasty up until the late Qing Dynasty (1644–1911) when fiefdom land was taken over by warlords and merchants. These limited property rights constrained potential scientific innovations.  The Chinese Empire enacted totalitarian control and was able to do so because of its great size. There were smaller independent states that had no choice but to comply with this control. They could not afford to isolate themselves. The Chinese believed in the well being of the state as their primary motive for economic activity, and individual initiatives were shunned. There were regulations on the press, clothing, construction, music, birth rates, and trade. The Chinese state controlled all aspects of life, severely limiting any incentives to innovate and to better one's self. "The ingenuity and inventiveness of the Chinese would no doubt have enriched China further and probably brought it to the threshold of modern industry, had it not been for this stifling state control. It is the State that kills technological progress in China". Meanwhile the lack of a free market in China escalated to a new affair whereby the Chinese were restricted from carrying trade with foreigners. Foreign trade is a great source of foreign knowledge as well as the capability of acquisition of new products. Foreign trade promotes innovation as well as the expansion of a countries market. As Landes (2006) further puts it, in 1368 when the new emperor Hongwu was inaugurated, his main objective was war. (p.6). A lot of revenue that can otherwise be used for innovative procedures are as a result lost in wars. Heavy participation in war significantly hindered the Chinese to have the capability of focusing on the industrial revolution. Landes (2006) further explains that Chinese were advised to stay put and never to move without permission from the Chinese state. As illustrated, “The Ming code of core laws also sought to block social mobility" (Landes, 2006, p. 7). How can you expect the industrial revolution to a country that prohibited its people from performing social mobility? From the above, you will come to find that it is clear that the Chinese would not be able to achieve industrial revolution since they were heavily tamed by their state government who were naïve about the aspect of innovation.  According to Justin Lin, China did not make the shift from an experience-based technological invention process to an experiment-based innovation process. The experience-based process depended on the size of a population, and while new technologies have come about through the trials and errors of the peasants and artisans, experiment-based processes surpasses experience-based processes in yielding new technology. Progress from experimentation following the logic of a scientific method can occur at a much faster rate because the inventor can perform many trials during the same production period under a controlled environment. Results from experimentation is dependent on the stock of scientific knowledge while results from experience-based processes is tied directly to the size of a population; hence, experiment-based innovation processes have a higher likelihood of producing better technology as human capital grows. China had about twice the population of Europe until the 13th century and so had a higher probability of creating new technologies. After the 14th century, China's population grew exponentially, but progress in innovation saw diminishing returns. Europe had a smaller population but began to integrate science and technology that arose from the scientific revolution in the 17th century. This scientific revolution gave Europe a comparative advantage in developing technology in modern times.  Lin blamed the institutions in China for preventing the adoption of the experiment-based methodology. Its sociopolitical institution inhibited intellectual creativity, but more importantly, it diverted this creativity away from scientific endeavours. Totalitarian control by the state in the Chinese Empire inhibited public dispute, competition, and the growth of modern science, while the clusters of independent European nations were more favourable to competition and scientific development. In addition, the Chinese did not have the incentives to acquire human capital necessary for modern scientific experimentation. Civil service was deemed the most rewarding and honourable work in pre-modern China. The gifted had more incentives to pursue this route to move up the social status ladder as opposed to pursuing scientific endeavours. Further the laxity and lack of innovation exhibited by China made her to be surpassed by the growing British technology and innovation. As Landes (2006)puts forward, the Chinese lived as they wanted. They were ruled by an emperor "Son of Heaven" who they termed to be unique, and he was godlike. As he further adds, this emperor had arrogant representatives who were chosen in terms of "competitive examinations in Confucian letters and morals.” As explained, these representatives were submissive to their subordinates as they possessed a high degree of self-esteem. Just as put forward by Landes (2006), the downward tyranny combined with the cultural triumphalism had made China as a state to become a bad learner. (p.11). It is clear China could not be able to accept any information from their inferiors.  According to Apte's biochemical 'genius germs' hypothesis, leprosy and tuberculosis epidemics endemic to Europe - but not to Asia - were speculated to positively select for schizotypal genes or alteration of the lipid metabolism phenotype in the European population resulting in “evolutionary disproportionate” increases in cerebro-diversity and cognition, beyond the threshold required to affect scientific or technological paradigm change - as occurred in the Renaissance and during the Industrial Revolution. This hypothesis is based on evidence that manipulation of host lipid pathways represents a significant mechanism for "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" and "Mycobacterium leprae" to cause and sustain infection. There is also evidence to suggest that infectious agents may be involved in the chain of causation of schizophrenia - a disease characterized by abnormal lipid metabolism in the brain and increased creativity.  The High-Level Equilibrium Trap. High population, although sometimes it can be a cheap source of labor which is necessary for economic development, sometimes the high population can be a great setback when it comes to development. The land which a factor of production can be negatively affected by high population. The ration of man to land will eventually decrease as the population of a community grows. During the thirteenth century, China was significantly affected by this population factor when it came to the point of ignition of an industrial revolution. As Lin (1995) puts forward, initially, the culture of the Chinese has valued the males in the society; as a result, early marriages were experienced which boosted the fertility rates leading to the rapid increase in the China population. (p.271). An increase in population with no equivalent increase in economic and technological development will ultimately suppress the available resources causing laxity to the general economic development. The high population experienced in China significantly raised the man to land ratio. The China population was massive. Just as Lin (1995) elaborates, the raising man-land-ratio in the Chinese meant that there was a diminishing surplus per capita. Due to this, China were not able to have surplus resources which can be tapped and used to ignite the industrial revolution. The impact of the high population just as demonstrated by Venn (2005), made China to experience lower real wages as compared to Europe thus it was not vital for China to develop a labour saving devices. The issue of the rising man to land ratio was a great setback for China to start a full-fledged industrial revolution. By the time China was battling with the ever-growing population, Europeans on the other side were enjoying a favorable and optimum population. Just as Lin (1995) puts forward, Europeans were enjoying an optimum man to land ratio with no land strain. The Europeans also had vast unexploited technologies as well as economics possibilities. All these advantages were possible because of the feudal system that the European had embraced, (p. 272). The availability of unexploited ventures made European have significant potential in the execution of a fully-fledged industrial revolution. Lin (1995) further adds that although Europe was lagging behind China during the pre-modern era in terms of economic and technological advancements, the right time finally came for Europe to use the accumulated sufficient knowledge. A strong need to save labor was finally felt in Europe. The agrarian revolution experienced before also provided agricultural surplus that ultimately served as the core assets towards financing the industrial revolution. (p. 272). The accumulation of adequate labor and knowledge to their threshold was a significant step that the European embraced to ignite an industrial revolution. It is also clear that the agrarian revolution experienced in Europe was a tangible asset towards industrialization. The issue of the abundance of land was also at the forefront in ensuring that industrial revolution was realized in Europe contrary to what was experienced in China whereby the large populations put a lot of strain to the available resources as a result making industrial revolution unattainable in China during the early fourteenth century.

Evaluations and critiques.

Needham's work has been criticised by some scholars who assert that it has a strong inclination to exaggerate Chinese technological achievements and has an excessive propensity to assume a Chinese origin for the wide range of objects his work covered. Pierre-Yves Manguin writes, for instance:  J Needham's (1971) monumental work on Chinese nautics offers by far the most scholarly synthesis on the subjects of Chinese shipbuilding and navigation. His propensity to view the Chinese as the initiators of all things and his constant references to the superiority of Chinese over the rest of the world's techniques does at times detract from his argument. In another vein of criticism, Andre Gunder Frank's "Re-Orient" argues that despite Needham's contributions in the field of Chinese technological history, he still struggled to break free from his preconceived notions of European exceptionalism. Re-Orient criticizes Needham for his Eurocentric assumptions borrowed from Marx and the presupposition of Needham's famous Grand Question that science was a uniquely Western phenomenon. Frank observes: Alas, it was also originally Needham's Marxist and Weberian point of departure. As Needham found more and more evidence about science and technology in China, he struggled to liberate himself from his Eurocentric original sin, which he had inherited directly from Marx, as Cohen also observes. But Needham never quite succeeded, perhaps because his concentration on China prevented him from sufficiently revising his still ethnocentric view of Europe itself. T. H. Barrett asserts in "The Woman Who Discovered Printing" that Needham was unduly critical of Buddhism, describing it as having 'tragically played a part in strangling the growth of Chinese science,' to which Needham readily conceded in a conversation a few years later. Barrett also criticizes Needham's favoritism and uncritical evaluation of Taoism in Chinese technological history: He had a tendency — not entirely justified in the light of more recent research — to think well of Taoism, because he saw it as playing a part that could not be found elsewhere in Chinese civilization. The mainstream school of thinking of the bureaucratic Chinese elite, or 'Confucianism' (another problematic term) in his vocabulary, seemed to him to be less interested in science and technology, and to have 'turned its face away from Nature.' Ironically, the dynasty that apparently turned away from printing from 706 till its demise in 907 was as Taoist as any in Chinese history, though perhaps its'state Taoism' would have seemed a corrupt and inauthentic business to Needham. Daiwie Fu, in the essay "On "Mengxi bitan"'s World of Marginalities and 'South-pointing Needles': Fragment Translation vs. Contextual Tradition", criticises Needham, among other Western scholars, for translations that select fragments deemed “scientific,” usually without appreciating the unity of the text, the context of the quotation, and taxonomy in which those fragments are embedded, then reorganize and reinterpret them in a new, Western taxonomy and narrative. Needham used this process of selection and re-assembly to argue for a Chinese tradition of science that did not exist as such.  Justin Lin argues against Needham's premise that China's early adoption of modern socioeconomic institutions contributed heavily to its technological advancement. Lin contends that technological advancements at this time were largely separate from economic circumstance, and that the effects of these institutions on technological advancement were indirect.

Political involvement.

Needham's political views were unorthodox and his lifestyle controversial. His left-wing stance was based in an idiosyncratic form of Christian socialism and after 1949 his sympathy with Chinese culture was extended to the new government. During his stay in China, Needham was asked to analyse some cattle-cakes that had been scattered by American aircraft in the south of China at the end of World War II, and found they were impregnated with anthrax. During the Korean War further accusations were made that the Americans had used biological warfare. Zhou Enlai coordinated an international campaign to enlist Needham for a study commission, tacitly offering access to materials and contacts in China needed for his then early research. Needham agreed to be an inspector in North Korea and his report supported the allegations. Needham's biographer Simon Winchester claimed that "Needham was intellectually in love with communism; and yet communist spymasters and agents, it turned out, had pitilessly duped him." Needham was blacklisted by the US government until well into the 1970s.  In 1965, with Derek Bryan, a retired diplomat whom he first met in China, Needham established the Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding, which for some years provided the only way for the British to visit the People's Republic of China. On a visit to China in 1964 he was met by Zhou Enlai, and in 1965 stated that "China has a better government now than for centuries", but on a visit in 1972 he was deeply depressed by the changes under the Cultural Revolution.

Personal life.

Needham married the biochemist Dorothy Moyle (1896–1987) in 1924 and they became the first husband and wife both to be elected as Fellows of the Royal Society. Simon Winchester notes that, in his younger days, Needham was an avid gymnosophist and he was always attracted by pretty women. When he and Lu Gwei-djen met in 1937, they fell deeply in love, which Dorothy accepted. The three of them eventually lived contentedly on the same road in Cambridge for many years. In 1989, two years after Dorothy's death, Needham married Lu, who died two years later. He suffered from Parkinson's disease from 1982, and died at the age of 94 at his Cambridge home. In 2008 the Chair of Chinese in the University of Cambridge, a post never awarded to Needham, was endowed in his honour as the Joseph Needham Professorship of Chinese History, Science and Civilisation.  Needham was a high church Anglo-Catholic who worshipped regularly at Ely Cathedral and in the college chapel, but he also described himself as an "honorary Taoist".

Honours and awards.

In 1961, Needham was awarded the George Sarton Medal by the History of Science Society and in 1966 he became Master of Gonville and Caius College. In 1979, Joseph Needham received the Dexter Award for Outstanding Achievement in the History of Chemistry from the American Chemical Society. In 1984, Needham became the fourth recipient of the J.D. Bernal Award, awarded by the Society for Social Studies of Science. In 1990, he was awarded the Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize by Fukuoka City.  The Needham Research Institute, devoted to the study of China's scientific history, was opened in 1985 by Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Noel Joseph Terence Montgomery Needham (; 9 December 1900 – 24 March 1995) was a British biochemist, historian and sinologist known for his scientific research and writing on the history of Chinese science and technology. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1941, and a fellow of the British Academy in 1971. In 1992, Queen Elizabeth II conferred on him the Companionship of Honour, and the Royal Society noted he was the only living person to hold these three titles.

李约瑟,(英语:Noel Joseph Terence Montgomery Needham,1900年-12月9日-1995年-3月24日),原文名诺尔·约瑟夫·泰伦斯·蒙哥马利·尼德汉,汉名李约瑟,生于英国英格兰伦敦,生物化学家、汉学家。所著《中国科学技术史》对现代中西文化交流影响深远。他关于中国科技停滞的李约瑟难题也引起各界关注和讨论。